Advantage of a Fish Eye?

I have a 18-55, I like the fish-eye look. Is it worth my investment to get a fish-eye? How often do ya'll use yours?

Thanks.

why not just get an ultra wide angle... that would be fine... say the 10-22.

A true 180 degree fish eye lens is really a specialty tool and you have to pick your spots where it's appropriate.

For just generally wanting to shoot really wide, Dave is right, get an UWA lens instead.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #7888935
A true 180 degree fish eye lens is really a specialty tool and you have to pick your spots where it's appropriate.

For just generally wanting to shoot really wide, Dave is right, get an UWA lens instead.

the fisheye turned me on to UWA. after tiring of the fisheye i bought the 16-35L II and now use it alot on my FF camera.

ed rader

In my opinion, a fisheye often has a much more natural, and appealing, look than a wide rectilinear. The reason is because the fisheye projection preserves distance at the cost of not preserving parallel, whereas a rectilinear preserves parallel at the expense of not preserving distance.

What that means is that, while parallel lines will converge with a fisheye, there is no stretching at the edges, whereas with a rectilinear, the lines remain parallel, but the edges get stretched.

If you keep the horizon centered, a FE pic can look remarkably normal, but other times you specifically want that FE look. Anyway, I use my 15 / 2.8 FE on a 5D quite a bit, and, in fact, consider it a "must-have" lens:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/15fegallery (all FE pics)

http://www.josephjames​photography.com/RPWCC/

In the second link, the FE pics are primarily the tug-o-war and basketball pics, and, I have to say, simply no other lens would have done as well.

That said, I really did love my 16-35 / 2.8L when I had it:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/1635

On crop, I would recommend a 10 / 2.8 FE over the 15 / 2.8 FE, though, if you still have an interest in a FE after seeing the pics.

Joe Mama, thanks for this post. When I opened this thread I was wondering about just this very info!

I have a Circular FishEye that I'm quite fond of, but to be honest, I don't think I would have it and only 1 other lens (which your 18-55 IS is).

I use my FishEye probably more than most owners (I seldom leave home without it), but it still isn't applicable for most situations. It takes a bit of forethought and planning to use it well. If you click the PBase link in my signature you'll see one of my favorite fisheye shots, that shot took a while to scout out the right shooting location for in Yankee Stadium... I've shot similar shots from higher in the top deck, lower, field level... and even then considerations of DOF and exposure still had to be considered. UWA's and FishEyes are the most dramatically sensative to shooting angle, because of their inherent perspective stretching and distortions, slight camera movements will produce dramatically different results... 5-10 degrees of longitudinal movement (vertical) can mean the difference of a curved horizon or perfectly flat one. The results are worth it, but it doesn't always work out.

Do a search on here for the Peleng 8mm Circular Fisheye and the Tokina 10-17mm FishEye Zoom. Those are the two fisheyes you should consider for your XS. The Peleng (which I have and swear by, and shot the shot I mentioned before) will run you about $350 on ebay, the Tokina 10-17 Fisheye Zoom runs about $580.

joe mama wrote in post #7888990
In my opinion, a fisheye often has a much more natural, and appealing, look than a wide rectilinear. The reason is because the fisheye projection preserves distance at the cost of not preserving parallel, whereas a rectilinear preserves parallel at the expense of not preserving distance.

What that means is that, while parallel lines will converge with a fisheye, there is no stretching at the edges, whereas with a rectilinear, the lines remain parallel, but the edges get stretched.

If you keep the horizon centered, a FE pic can look remarkably normal, but other times you specifically want that FE look. Anyway, I use my 15 / 2.8 FE on a 5D quite a bit, and, in fact, consider it a "must-have" lens:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/15fegallery (all FE pics)

http://www.josephjames​photography.com/RPWCC/

In the second link, the FE pics are primarily the tug-o-war and basketball pics, and, I have to say, simply no other lens would have done as well.

That said, I really did love my 16-35 / 2.8L when I had it:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/1635

On crop, I would recommend a 10 / 2.8 FE over the 15 / 2.8 FE, though, if you still have an interest in a FE after seeing the pics.

I look forward to the day I can add a 5D Mk2 to my gear list so I can add the Canon 15 f2.8 FE as well. I love how sharp that thing is at wide aperatures, the added isolation of your subjects in a fisheye composition reminds me of what I love so much about the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - isolating a subject very sharply and letting the rest of the very deep scene gently fade.

One of the shortcomings of all the 8mm f/3.5 Circular Fisheyes (Peleng & Sigma) aren't super sharp until f/5.6, f/4 is the first truly acceptably sharp aperature. And while I generally shoot mine at f/8 or f/11, the loss of ability to effectively use the lens at wider aperature does limit you a bit - but then again thats what post-production is good for.

Great shots you got there tho.

Thanks to all that replied.

joe mama: Thanks so much for the info. The one thing I notice with the FE opposed to the 16-35, is that it appears the 16-35 has cleaner lines! Maybe a better edge finish? Because I don't know all the tech lingo, there are probably many better words to describe that.

And I kinda agree that the use of FE may have to be pre-planned, whereas with UWA that Dave suggested might be a bit more useful.

I really like the results of the 16-35, any samples with a 10-22?

Thanks. one cannot discount the value of a good forum.

If you look for a sharp fisheye for a crop body I strongly recommend the sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye very fast, great AF and the thing is really sharp.

Note: I've also used/owned a Peleng 8mm, a Canon 15mm 2.8, a Sigma 8mm and a Nikkor 10,5mm fisheye.

Luigi

tawcat wrote in post #7889154
Thanks to all that replied.

joe mama: Thanks so much for the info. The one thing I notice with the FE opposed to the 16-35, is that it appears the 16-35 has cleaner lines! Maybe a better edge finish? Because I don't know all the tech lingo, there are robably many better words to describe that.

And I kinda agree that the use of FE may have to be pre-planned, whereas with UWA that Dave suggested might be a bit more useful.

I really like the results of the 16-35, any samples with a 10-22?

Thanks. one cannot discount the value of a good forum.

The 16-35 f/2.8L is an awesome lens, but its also quite expensive (~$1600). But beware that @ 16mm its not that much wider than your 18-55 IS. You should look for shots from the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 if you're gonna go the UWA route. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 can be had for about $580 new and in the $500 range used. It will compliment the lens you already have in terms of adding to your focal range, you will find the IQ of the Tokina to be vastly superior to your 18-55IS tho, even when shooting wide open @ f/2.8.

luigis wrote in post #7889270

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

If you look for a sharp fisheye for a crop body I strongly recommend the sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye very fast, great AF and the thing is really sharp.

Note: I've also used/owned a Peleng 8mm, a Canon 15mm 2.8, a Sigma 8mm and a Nikkor 10,5mm fisheye.

Luigi

+1 for sigma 10mm fisheye.. worth it!

Glad to help!

Even at f/2.8 on FF, though, the DOF is rather deep unless you frame tightly. Oh man, oh man -- how I'd love a 15 / 2 FE!

Hmm. I don't know what you mean by "cleaner lines" or "better edge finish". Perhaps you could explain in more detail, maybe by linking some comparative pics (feel free to link to mine) and telling why you prefer one over the other.

As for the "pre-planned" business, the only reason a FE needs more "planning" is because you're used to rectilinear lenses. As you gain experience, it gets easier to use a FE. But as most so rarely use a FE, they never get enough experience to use it naturally. In my case, I've only been using a FE for about six months, and, while it's getting easier and more instinctive, there's still plenty room for improvement.

Unfortunately, I don't have any 10-22 galleries to share, but the 16-35 / 2.8L on FF can get 2-3 stops more shallow DOF, which also allows it to be used more comfortably in low light, so it lends itself to a broader range of shooting than the 10-22.

joe mama wrote in post #7891727
Hmm. I don't know what you mean by "cleaner lines" or "better edge finish". Perhaps you could explain in more detail, maybe by linking some comparative pics (feel free to link to mine) and telling why you prefer one over the other.

Maybe my verbiage was not chosen well. I did not intend to insult. Rather I guess what I was saying is that the FE produces a very angled edge. No thats not right either.

Let me just say, to my eye I like the straight finish rather than the angular/radial finish of the FE. But then, the FE produces a very unique photo unlike any rectilinear photo.

Thanks again for your input. And I believe I will will probably invest in a FE. No hurry, so I will keep my eye open for a good deal on a good lens.

I use both ultra-wide and fisheye. they both have their places. Ultra-wide where you don't need the extreme width of a fisheye, and want straight lines preserved. Fisheye for absolutely insane width or areas where circles are involved (circles don't distort).

Fisheyes can look very natural in the right circumstances: