Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 26 Aug 2011 (Friday) 05:19
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sigma 8-16MM vs Sigma 10MM fisheye?

 
BaghdadFred
Senior Member
871 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Baghdad Iraq
Aug 26, 2011 05:19 |  #1

I am taking indoor shots with my ultra wide Sigma 8-16MM. At 8MM things are sharp but close by items are of course bring on a lot distortion same as would a fisheye lens. The 8-16MM is NOT billed as fisheye lens.

I am also interested in the 10MM Sigma fisheye lens. My only concern is that the type of creative distorted images you would get with this lens would look nearly identical to the the ones I can get on my Sigma at 8MM.

Not concerned about the distortion on either. Just wondering if the 10MM fisheye will give me any significant difference in appearance.

Anyone care to comment?


Fred - Photographing everyday Military life in Iraqexternal link | SmugMugexternal link
7D | C 100-400L | Σ 70-200 2.8 OS | Σ 30 1.4 | C 10-22 | Σ 8-16 | C 17-55 2.8 IS | C 28-135 IS | 580EX II | Σ 1.4x

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
mike cabilangan's Avatar
1,377 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Metro Manila
Aug 26, 2011 16:14 |  #2

for one, the fisheye would give you a lot wider view even compared to the 8mm.

and the distortion on the fisheye would definitely give a different appearance.


camera bag reviewsexternal link
flickrexternal linkgearLust

LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Devil
Goldmember
The Devil's Avatar
1,023 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Tallinn, Estonia
Aug 26, 2011 17:02 |  #3

The 8-16 isn't billed as a fisheye, because it isn't one. Fisheyes distort FAR more than it does.
And no, a 10mm lens wont give a wider view than a 8mm does. That just doesn't make sense.
Keep using your 8-16 and use PS to get rid of the distortions, shouldn't be that hard to fix.
Also, give us a sample of the "fisheye" distortion you're seeing.


A good photographer can take extraordinary photos anywhere, with any camera and any lens while a mediocre one will take mediocre ones everywhere, with every camera and every lens.
Never limit yourself with what others think you should do. Shoot what you find interesting, exactly the way you want to.
Flickrexternal link 500pxexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TheRisingArms
Senior Member
351 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Sydney, Australia
Aug 26, 2011 18:03 |  #4

The Devil wrote in post #13005539external link
And no, a 10mm lens wont give a wider view than a 8mm does. That just doesn't make sense.

Actually no, a 10mm fisheye gives an 180 degree field of view diagonally, whereas a 8mm rectillinear lens gives much less than that.


Bodies: Canon 500D | Canon EOS M
Lenses: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 | EF-M 22mm f/2
Flashes: YN-568EX | 90EX

LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
mike cabilangan's Avatar
1,377 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Metro Manila
Aug 27, 2011 09:22 |  #5

TheRisingArms wrote in post #13005745external link
Actually no, a 10mm fisheye gives an 180 degree field of view diagonally, whereas a 8mm rectillinear lens gives much less than that.

and the 8-16 only produces 114.5° diagonally at it's widest for 1.5 crops ... should be less than that for 1.6 crops like canon.

the 10mm fisheye does produce 180° diagonally, but only for Nikon 1.5 crops. for canon it's 167° (still a lot wider than ANY mainstream UWA lens either on full frame or crop)


camera bag reviewsexternal link
flickrexternal linkgearLust

LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Devil
Goldmember
The Devil's Avatar
1,023 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Tallinn, Estonia
Aug 27, 2011 14:20 |  #6

I see... that's interesting. Guess one learns something new every day.
In any case, I wouldn't use a fisheye to take interior shots. Distorts way too much. But if you're fine with that, I guess you could effectively use one.
I'd imagine the distortion you're seeing is the typical UWA distortion not the fisheye distortion. Sample images would help.


A good photographer can take extraordinary photos anywhere, with any camera and any lens while a mediocre one will take mediocre ones everywhere, with every camera and every lens.
Never limit yourself with what others think you should do. Shoot what you find interesting, exactly the way you want to.
Flickrexternal link 500pxexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,692 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 8-16MM vs Sigma 10MM fisheye?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00144 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
Latest registered member is marifer
802 guests, 445 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016