Fisheye

[JuStDaVe]

What fisheye / wideangle have u got and if u have a fisheye or wide wide angle and a 20d can u please post some pics from it

looking for some samples b4 i buy

cheers

dave

[roanjohn]

I had a Canon 15 fisheye once...........it was a good lens............solid build.....nice contrasty colors..........However, I felt that it was too much of a novelty..........so I invested on a 17-40 f4 L instead.

Here is one sample:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/42161312.jpg

...............the only thing I miss is that you can really get some interesting shots with the fisheye.

Ro1

[rdenney]

I think a fisheye makes a great general-purpose extreme wide, if you exercise just a bit of care.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/holy-water-lores.jpg

I made this image with a 16mm Zenitar fisheye on a 10D. The Zenitar is a Russian lens that works quite well, and is very much cheaper than the competition.

Rick "who also has a 30mm fisheye for medium format" Denney

[KevC]

Just make sure all the straight lines run through the centre of the frame, and you'll be fine. I want one of those Russian Fishies... but that's after the 35mm Flektogon, ;)

[kawter2]

I have the 10-22 and have LOVED it. I was REALLY wanting a fisheye instead of this lens, but now that I have it, I am VERRRRRRY happy I wen't with the 10-22. It is REAL wide, and has (IMO) just enough barrel distortion to give you that "fishy" look. but it is corrected enough that you get more keepers. IMO fish shots are a REAL fine line between SUPER and reallly ugly plain distorted. IMO with a fish you either nail the shot, or throw it away.. not much middle ground




here are some from this saturday (80% with the 10-22)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71195

[kawter2]

btw GREAT shot Ro1. The lines/framing are Awesome!!

[rdenney]

I have the 10-22 and have LOVED it. I was REALLY wanting a fisheye instead of this lens, but now that I have it, I am VERRRRRRY happy I wen't with the 10-22. It is REAL wide, and has (IMO) just enough barrel distortion to give you that "fishy" look. but it is corrected enough that you get more keepers. IMO fish shots are a REAL fine line between SUPER and reallly ugly plain distorted. IMO with a fish you either nail the shot, or throw it away.. not much middle ground

To me, 1 or 2% barrel distortion in a rectilinear lens does not a fisheye make.

The whole point of a fisheye is to provide an alternative projection. With a fisheye, objects in the center of the frame are bigger than with a rectilinear lens of the same general coverage. And round objects in the corners still look round, instead of being stretched into unnatural shapes as with a rectilinear lens. Rectilinear projection is one form of projection, and fisheye is another form of projection. Each has its image possibilities. There is no need for a fisheye lens to be used only for special effect. I have many fisheye images that don't appear to be fisheye images at all. And for many organic subjects, fisheye projection is more natural. Just put the horizon in the middle of the frame and crop, or pick a horizon that isn't straight. When trees and buildings (and other man-made straight things) are the subject, I use a rectilinear wide. In short, I'd have the fisheye even if I had a rectilinear wide (and, since I have the Sigma 12-24 for my 10D, I have made that choice).

For example, is this a fisheye image?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/st-helens-coldwater-ridge-l.jpg

Is this a fisheye image?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tidal-flat-4x8-lores.jpg

Rick "both are" Denney

[kawter2]

To me, 1 or 2% barrel distortion in a rectilinear lens does not a fisheye make.




It is REAL wide, and has (IMO) just enough barrel distortion to give you that "fishy" look. but it is corrected enough that you get more keepers.


I DON'T at all think the 10-22 rectilinear is a fisheye, and even tried to state that above. When I said "fishy" it was a take of "fisheye" to sugest it just has a hint of that style

[johnlo]

I got the Sigma 15mm Fisheye. Here's a pic I took years ago. Of course it wasnt taken using a digital, but from a film camera (Canon 1N). Picture was captured on Slide film.

I think fisheye or a super wide angle lense are so much fun to play with......


http://www.jklimagery.com/portfolio/places/40.jpg

[Tom W]

johnlo - that's an interesting picture, and it shows me roughly what I'm missing when I use the fisheye on the 1D II - it's a 1.3X sensor, so you can safely trim a border off the image to see what I'd get. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to shoot a few fisheye shots with film to compare them to my digital shots.

BTW, is that your ballon's shadow on the hillside?

[retro]

Why wouldnt you want to use a fish as a regular wide angle? I have a 20D with a 1.6x crop that is proving to be a pain in the a......ngle. I know tamron is releasing a very wide zoom soon, but I can't see it being a great lens. Even the canon 10-22 is getting mixed reviews. Can you consistantly pound out good images if you are aware of your center line and have some common sense as to your subjects position and role in your composition? I almost lose all of the fish effect anyways with this crop. Any advice?

[JuStDaVe]

has anyone got an adapeter and put a videocamera 1.5 wideangle lense on and tryied that or is that extreamly dodgy

cheers for all the help

[redheat86]

You could always get the Peleng and slap on a 1.4x teleconverter for a 17 or so equivilent. I currently have the Peleng but no funds to get the teleconverter. I plan to stop by ritz and try out there cheapy 1.4x tamron or whatever model for this.

I will post pictures once i have accomplished the task.

[kawter2]

You could always get the Peleng and slap on a 1.4x teleconverter for a 17 or so equivilent. I currently have the Peleng but no funds to get the teleconverter. I plan to stop by ritz and try out there cheapy 1.4x tamron or whatever model for this.

I will post pictures once i have accomplished the task.

This guy has some GREAT shots with this lens.. I think he just crops it instead of a TC, but that is a good idea too (xcpt it might hinder distance focus, but im not sure)

http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/0502171856_clean.php

[rdenney]

I DON'T at all think the 10-22 rectilinear is a fisheye, and even tried to state that above. When I said "fishy" it was a take of "fisheye" to sugest it just has a hint of that style

I know you didn't, but it might have given that impression.

You did say that the results were either keepers or garbage, and I think that's true only when you use the fisheye for fisheye effect. I rarely use my fisheyes for the fisheye effect, but frequently use them when the fisheye projection is manageable (as it is most of the time).

Even in the image taken inside the old church, the fisheye effect, while clearly visible, is not distracting, and therefore is not really an effect. A rectilinear image might have been just as effective (however effective that is I won't presume to argue), but the fisheye is what I had with me at the time.

When I do occasionally use the fisheye only for effect, I often have to throw those away, because special effects have to support the artistic intentions of the photographer, not supersede them.

It's the extreme wides that sometimes cause problems, because they are terribly unforgiving of being tilted even slightly, and they exaggerate the resulting distorted perspective. Fisheyes are much more forgiving of being use slightly tilted.

Rick "who doesn't really like fisheye effects, but who uses fisheyes routinely" Denney

[roanjohn]

Thanks Kawter...:-)

Rick - you are killing me with your fisheye images from this thread and the others. They are absolutely AWESOME!!!!

Ro1

[retro]

Thanks Kawter...:-)

Rick - you are killing me with your fisheye images from this thread and the others. They are absolutely AWESOME!!!!

Ro1

I'll second that. Canon should throw you a kickback due to the sale they just made off of me on a 15mm fish.

[rdenney]

I'll second that. Canon should throw you a kickback due to the sale they just made off of me on a 15mm fish.

That's most humorous, considering I don't own the Canon fisheye and see no need for it, heh, heh. My 16mm Zenitar (for $150) does just fine! But you'll enjoy the automation of the Canon lens--that's what I gave up to save money with the Zenitar.

Rick "who thinks Canon is probably irritated by my resourceful use of non-Canon lenses, if they know about me at all, which I highly doubt" Denney

[pierrot]

...special effects have to support the artistic intentions of the photographer, not supersede them.
I couldn't have said it better. ;)

I do not like your firts samples that much, but #3 (field with mountains) is excellent.
And Roanjohn's one is a great piece of framing, with a clever and attractive composition.

Both of these pictures are not superseding the photographer's touch by an artificial optical effect, they're just served by the capabilities of the lens.

That's the way I like it. :D

[johnlo]

johnlo - that's an interesting picture, and it shows me roughly what I'm missing when I use the fisheye on the 1D II - it's a 1.3X sensor, so you can safely trim a border off the image to see what I'd get. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to shoot a few fisheye shots with film to compare them to my digital shots.

BTW, is that your ballon's shadow on the hillside?

Thanks... ya, I was on a Hot Air Ballon ride. personal experience Totally NOT worth the money, especially when you have to get up before sunrise. But I am happy that I got some really beautiful shots while being up in the air. That was taken at Napa Valley.... I believe on June 3, 2001.

I have tried using this fisheye with my 20D. Totally not the same. Dont get that same feeling anymore..... some things are just better with film camera.

[willg]

how sharp is that zenitar? i have heard its hard to focus it but i really think that if its at least as sharp as the kit lens its worth it

[rdenney]

how sharp is that zenitar? i have heard its hard to focus it but i really think that if its at least as sharp as the kit lens its worth it

I don't have the kit lens, but I suspect the Zenitar is sharper.

Let me tantalize you with this image (that I've shown here before):

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/st_helens_zenitar_johnston_ridge_extreme_lores.jpg

Now, the tantalizing part is that I have a full-res copy of this image hiding here:

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/st_helens_zenitar_johnston_ridge_extreme_hires.jpg

It's a 700K JPEG, which means it's highly compressed, but you see what the lens can do. The foreground was focused and the background (five miles away) brought in via depth of field.

Rick "who thinks the Zenitar does well by prime standards which means it's better than most zooms" Denney

[Tom W]

Pretty nice shot, Rick. That Zenitar does very well.

The Canon fish is no slouch either:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/41034020

[willg]

I don't have the kit lens, but I suspect the Zenitar is sharper.

Let me tantalize you with this image (that I've shown here before):



Now, the tantalizing part is that I have a full-res copy of this image hiding here:

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/st_helens_zenitar_johnston_ridge_extreme_hires.jpg

It's a 700K JPEG, which means it's highly compressed, but you see what the lens can do. The foreground was focused and the background (five miles away) brought in via depth of field.

Rick "who thinks the Zenitar does well by prime standards which means it's better than most zooms" Denney

is it hard to focus? i have a 300d and havent used a full manual lens on it ever...how do you know its in focus without the little split circle that the older cameras have?

[rdenney]

is it hard to focus? i have a 300d and havent used a full manual lens on it ever...how do you know its in focus without the little split circle that the older cameras have?

My vision is not wonderful, but you see from my results that I managed to get the image I showed you in focus on my 10D. It takes a bit of practice to focus a manual lens accurately, but if I can do it, you can do it.

Rick "who thinks checking the finder diopter adjustment frequently is critical--it tends to get nudged on the 10D" Denney