ATTN Action Sports Photograhers! Fisheye Question

BCSPhotoguy

How many of you use a fisheye lens? I have a 12-24 f4 but i am seeing alot of MX photographers using a fisheye for some really cool creative shots. Not just MX - road racing - just about anything with wheels! I am trying to gauge if the fisheye is worth buying and learning to use correctly.

Any thoughts?

Erbeman

BCSPhotoguy wrote:

How many of you use a fisheye lens? I have a 12-24 f4 but i am seeing alot of MX photographers using a fisheye for some really cool creative shots. Not just MX - road racing - just about anything with wheels! I am trying to gauge if the fisheye is worth buying and learning to use correctly.

Any thoughts?

I've got one. I don't use it a whole lot, but I do use it and it should be in every mx photographers bag. The downside to them are that you have to get extremely close to the rider to fill the frame and they are a DX lens. So, when I went to a full frame camera for my main body, I can no longer use it. So, I've got to drag out the D300.

You can also use it as a realy wide angle lens like I did here:

ian408

I love WA! The only issue is that to get some cool stuff, you have to be really close to the action and need to exercise some caution

polyya

In my job i use to work a lot with the fisheye. Have the 10,5 and the 16mm nikon. Love this lens the 10,5 it´s extremely sharp, and guives me less problems that the 16mm to focus wit the digital bodies. Anyway both are awesome.
The common thinking about this kind of lenses it´s that you need to approach a lot to the subject but sometimes a little further it´s quite better. Here i´m at arround 2,5 mts away from the surfer but in another ocasions i´m even far away. I think the better way to do it it´s shoot and shoot and shoot with them. In my modest opinion it´s a must have lens in any sports photographer bag...

BCSPhotoguy

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments. I am really trying to decide as part of me thinks the money spent on this could go towards a downpayment on a 300 2.8 - i know, thats waaaay the other way! I think the fisheye will be my 'spring purchase'
You realize my next question is going to be a 300 2.8 vs a 300 f4...!

ian408

BCSPhotoguy wrote:

You realize my next question is going to be a 300 2.8 vs a 300 f4...!

Not that the f4 isn't good but you'll have a more versatile lens with the 2.8.

Erbeman

BCSPhotoguy wrote:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments. I am really trying to decide as part of me thinks the money spent on this could go towards a downpayment on a 300 2.8 - i know, thats waaaay the other way! I think the fisheye will be my 'spring purchase'
You realize my next question is going to be a 300 2.8 vs a 300 f4...!

Depends on if you're ever going to need it in low light. I see that as the biggest factor. At F4 you still get a good shallow depth of field. Of course the money that you would save by going F4 would pay for the fisheye. I'm getting a new long prime in the fall mainly for football. I had planned on a new 300 F/2.8, but I'm thinking of hoping I can find a good used 400 F/2.8 in great shape instead. The 300 is about $5000 new. The 400 is like $9000 new. I'm praying that I can find a used 400 for around $6000.

mercphoto

BCSPhotoguy wrote:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments. I am really trying to decide as part of me thinks the money spent on this could go towards a downpayment on a 300 2.8 - i know, thats waaaay the other way! I think the fisheye will be my 'spring purchase'
You realize my next question is going to be a 300 2.8 vs a 300 f4...!

I used to have the Canon 300/2.8 and LOVED IT. And I often regret selling it. That said, it got some use with karts and motocross, but not a lot. It did create for an interesting look that my 70-200/2.8 could not, but obviously there was a versatility factor involved.

As per 2.8 versus 4, that's a tough call. I normally go for fast glass, but I have to admit I am really looking into getting a 100-400 lens this year, and that isn't even an f/4 lens! Hopefully the track day sales this year will justify a lens purchase for me.

ian408

Erbeman wrote:

Depends on if you're ever going to need it in low light. I see that as the biggest factor. At F4 you still get a good shallow depth of field. Of course the money that you would save by going F4 would pay for the fisheye. I'm getting a new long prime in the fall mainly for football. I had planned on a new 300 F/2.8, but I'm thinking of hoping I can find a good used 400 F/2.8 in great shape instead. The 300 is about $5000 new. The 400 is like $9000 new. I'm praying that I can find a used 400 for around $6000.

I should have added the 2.8 + 1.4TC also makes a great combo. One lens, much lower price and almost 2x the distance all for only 1 stop. Plus, you can hand-hold this combination (try it for any length of time with a 500). If you use it with a 2TC, you lose 2 stops.

The f4 is cheaper and buying it would allow you to get the fish plus have some money left over

mercphoto

mercphoto wrote:

I used to have the Canon 300/2.8 and LOVED IT. And I often regret selling it. That said, it got some use with karts and motocross, but not a lot. It did create for an interesting look that my 70-200/2.8 could not, but obviously there was a versatility factor involved.

As per 2.8 versus 4, that's a tough call. I normally go for fast glass, but I have to admit I am really looking into getting a 100-400 lens this year, and that isn't even an f/4 lens! Hopefully the track day sales this year will justify a lens purchase for me.

An MX shot with a 300/2.8 lens on a Canon 20D, shot at f/5. Its definitely a different look than shots with a 70-200 or a 24-70. Can't say I remember how many of this type of shot sold though!

BCSPhotoguy

Thanks again for the comments! Mercphoto, you hit the nail on the head - I would be using it mostly for track days and I live near a great road race course (Mosport) They have a few Superbike rounds, and i have used a 300 with 1.4x at it before and loved it. I have used my 70-200 with a 1.7x at track days - it works but I know the other will work that much better.

Erbeman, I was at the SX last weekend in Toronto and saw a few of the guys using a 300 2.8 and that got me thinking. Also, the main photog for the ISOC series (snoX) uses one as well and loves it at night.

On the positive side, i have the green light from the 'boss' to look for a fisheye! Your posts helped in that one! Now, the 300... that may take some work!

Erbeman

BCSPhotoguy wrote:

Thanks again for the comments! Mercphoto, you hit the nail on the head - I would be using it mostly for track days and I live near a great road race course (Mosport) They have a few Superbike rounds, and i have used a 300 with 1.4x at it before and loved it. I have used my 70-200 with a 1.7x at track days - it works but I know the other will work that much better.

Erbeman, I was at the SX last weekend in Toronto and saw a few of the guys using a 300 2.8 and that got me thinking. Also, the main photog for the ISOC series (snoX) uses one as well and loves it at night.

On the positive side, i have the green light from the 'boss' to look for a fisheye! Your posts helped in that one! Now, the 300... that may take some work!

For SX, you really do need a 300 because they keep us so far back from the dang track usually that with a shorter lens you are very limited to where you can shoot unless you crop the heck out of the pics in post.

MX on the other hand, we can get right up on the edge of the track as if it's just a local race. That is so nice. So, a 70-200 is great for MX. I'm mainly getting it for football though, plus believe it or not, the long primes are really good portrait lenses as well and I'm now getting into that type of photography as well and that's where the money is at that will compensate for what I'll have to spend on it.

nw scout

I cant help much as far as the Nikon lenses go so hopefully this wont be useless info.
Speaking in Canon terms

The 300 2.8 is a total kick ass lens. Razor sharp and the best focus tracking lens on the planet!!!

If your not doing ad work it is a bit overkill IMO.
With digital and nice hi ISO images these days, the need for 2.8 is much less than it used to be.
I like them for the glass and the autofocus more than the fact they shoot at 2.8.

As far as the fish eye goes, its nice to have but gets used seldom. A good 16 or 17mm wide angle work great 95% of the time. You need to be REALLY close to get the fisheye effect, if you can't get there you might as well have the wide angle as it will look about the same.

Fisheye for MX
Better be a setup shot and from the inside of a slow moving corner. Trying it at a race event is like putting your life on the line for the shot.

I would go with the 300 F4 or a 100 to 400 zoom and the fisheye ( if you already have a wide angle)

Dave

Matt336

I've used a "fisheye" for MX a few times. I used a Sigma 10-20 f/4.

tensai-riot

I have a screw on type fish-eye that I use allot for different types of events. It is ok, but I also want to by one of the Nikon ones, as mine is a very heavy hunk o glass. Here are some of the better ones I have gotten:



















Anyways, you can tell the lens I have is not of the best quality, but the end effect is still pretty cool. And I use it for much more than just sports.

Can't wait to see your fisheyed MX shots!

Cheers!

BCSPhotoguy

Thanks for the examples! I have a race coming up in a week or so that I am going to try someones Nikon 10.5 fisheye so that will give me some time to play around with it.

Thanks for the Freestyle shots as well. I do alot of that in summer so its handy to see what people are doing with them. Those sequence shots of your are amazing. I think i need to get that figured out this summer - or atleast learn the patience side of it!!!! That may be my biggest problem right there!

robscomputer

I've used a 8mm fisheye with my 1.6x crop camera for MX before. To get the full effect you need to be very close, so I placed the camera on a monopod, and used a cable remote to trigger the shutter. It was my friend powering out of a corner so it was staged but no way I would hand hold this during a real MX race. But if you have a small tripod and camera (that you don't mind loosing) it would be a great effect for the first turn, trigger via pocketwizards.

Now, I'm on full frame and using a 15mm fisheye which I'm using for fun shots and action sports. Still has the same amount of issues that you need to get close or near straight angles to get the full effect.

SimpsonBrothers

Used a Sigma full frame fisheye for these, yes, you do have to get close.