Fish Eye lenses to the extreme - which one??

catspaw · October 16, 2008

To start, I have the 10-20mm Sigma DX super wide angle and it's definitely NOT a fish eye and I want that distortion for artistic purposes.

With that disclaimer out of the way, hi! :wave

There is the very obvious Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX (street $600)
Which I really have no issues with. I saw rumors of an 8mm once upon a time but I do not believe it was DX unless I was seeing a preview.

HOWEVER, I've seen some starting mm lenses from Sigma. There's a Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG (street value $150 more than the Nikkor). slower stop but nothing extreme

And then a Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM AF lens for $150 more than the prior (so $300 more than the Nikkor), which at least has a decent f stop.

I *can* rent the Nikkor locally, but Pictureline doesn't carry Sigmas (at least for rentals) :scratch

I know Sigmas have a good/bad reputation depending on the lens -- the 10-20mm one I have I know has gotten great reviews and done some very sharp amazing photos for me.

So..um... chime in? dollar per mm fish eye worth it??

ziggy53 · October 16, 2008

I moved this to the "Cameras" forum which is for the discussion of cameras and lenses.

The Flea Market is for the "sale" of such items.

Carry on the discussion.

aktse · October 16, 2008

catspaw wrote:

So..um... chime in? dollar per mm fish eye worth it??

First of all,

I"m glad to hear that you made it home in one piece.

Others can probably chime in, but I have the 8mm sigma fishy and love it and I blame Schmoo and Ivar for my purchase. Schmoo had it it mull, and I saw the photos, and needed to buy it. On this trip, Ivar rented it.

It is a "must have" -- no

Do I really need it -- no

Will I miss it if it wasn't in my collection -- no

But is it fun to use? -- You bet!

catspaw · October 16, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

I moved this to the "Cameras" forum which is for the discussion of cameras and lenses.

The Flea Market is for the "sale" of such items.

Carry on the discussion.

Odd.... I didn't POST it in the Fleamarket section, or at least I didn't think so. Apologies if so.

catspaw · October 16, 2008

aktse wrote:

First of all,

I"m glad to hear that you made it home in one piece.

Others can probably chime in, but I have the 8mm sigma fishy and love it and I blame Schmoo and Ivar for my purchase. Schmoo had it it mull, and I saw the photos, and needed to buy it. On this trip, Ivar rented it.

It is a "must have" -- no

Do I really need it -- no

Will I miss it if it wasn't in my collection -- no

But is it fun to use? -- You bet!

Oh, easy drive with an hour nap in some VERY random named town. Thanks

As for your answers... gosh no help!!!

The $300 difference is not HUGE but not small either. And aside from pano gear (which I TOTALLY cannot make sense of on RRS so far as what I need), I've no huge purchases in the future. I might have to see which mail rental places have those lenses so I can play with and see if perhaps the 8mm is worth it for the 2.5mm idecrease. OR another $250 more for a 3.5mm decrease to 4.5 mm (!!!!).

If any good of course.

I wonder at some level if the distortion can get to be TOO much

zweiblumen · October 16, 2008

catspaw wrote:

Oh, easy drive with an hour nap in some VERY random named town. Thanks As for your answers... gosh no help!!!

The $300 difference is not HUGE but not small either. And aside from pano gear (which I TOTALLY cannot make sense of on RRS so far as what I need), I've no huge purchases in the future. I might have to see which mail rental places have those lenses so I can play with and see if perhaps the 8mm is worth it for the 2.5mm idecrease. OR another $250 more for a 3.5mm decrease to 4.5 mm (!!!!). If any good of course.

I wonder at some level if the distortion can get to be TOO much

I can recommend borrowlenses.com. We've used them many times. Really nice and helpful folks. They've got all of the lenses you've mentioned here: http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon_fish

HTH

-Trav

catspaw · October 16, 2008

zweiblumen wrote:

I can recommend borrowlenses.com. We've used them many times. Really nice and helpful folks. They've got all of the lenses you've mentioned here: http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon_fish

HTH

-Trav

Awesome. I wonder if they'll let me try all 3 at once so I can do comparison shots and know for SURE. Recommendation loved! :ivar

ps. Oh Awesome! and I can pick them up thanksgiving week and play with them then Tues-Fri I hope locally and save $30+

aktse · October 16, 2008

catspaw wrote:

Awesome. I wonder if they'll let me try all 3 at once so I can do comparison shots and know for SURE. Recommendation loved! :ivar

Another thumbs up for Borrowlenses. I had issues with one of their lenses on the shootout and they sent me another one. And I don't see any reason why they won't let you rent all three of them at the same tiem.

As for which lens -- you are the only person that can decided.

For me, people seemed happy with the 8mm and that was good enough for me.

catspaw · October 16, 2008

10.5?

aktse wrote:

Another thumbs up for Borrowlenses. I had issues with one of their lenses on the shootout and they sent me another one. And I don't see any reason why they won't let you rent all three of them at the same tiem.

As for which lens -- you are the only person that can decided.

For me, people seemed happy with the 8mm and that was good enough for me.

And I also know several content with the 10.5, but perhaps they've never tried the 8? and a 4.5 sounds just ... WHOA.

Robinivich · October 16, 2008

I haven't yet used a fisheye (some really distorting wide angles though

), but there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet I thought I should raise: do you want Circular or Diagonal?

A diagonal fisheye is designed to cover the entire frame, meaning you get coverage of 180 degrees drawn between far corners. These are usually 15mm for FX (full frame) or 10-10.5mm for DX (APS-C). Typically these are the ones used for "mainstream" fisheye photography.

A circular fisheye (8mm FX, ~4.5mm DX) DOES NOT cover your entire sensor, meaning you'll see a circular image, coverage 180 degrees drawn across the diameter of the projected circle, but since your camera takes square, 3:2 images, all the area around the circle is black, not dark, but black. It's not a big deal, but you'll probably want to crop for artistic uses. Originally circular fisheyes seem to be intended for science, since you can measure angles in the circular image.

Here's a review of an 8mm fisheye, it's taken on a Canon APS-C camera, but it gives a good idea what I'm talking about, and still applies in your case:

http://photozone.de/canon-eos/254-peleng-8mm-f35-fisheye-converted-to-eos-mount-test-report--review

:Edit:

Here's a link to the widest of the wide, and lucky you, it comes with a native F-mount, but unfortunately weighs 5.2 kgs...

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm

catspaw · October 16, 2008

Robinivich wrote:

I haven't yet used a fisheye (some really distorting wide angles though ), but there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet I thought I should raise: do you want Circular or Diagonal?

Oh wow, VERY good of you to bring this up. With the 10-12mm Sigma super wide angle, I've gotten used to those photos, but I've also seen the 'real' fish eye photos of several friends -- with the black corners. I'm not alert enough to put a name to each type, but I *do* know I am doing this more for artistic purposes than anything else. This is one lens I canNOT write off as a business expense

hehe.

I shall re-read those both again tomorrow when my brain and eyes are a bit more up to the game. thank you!!!

mmmatt · October 17, 2008

I just picked up the sigma 15mm diag fisheye and so far it seems to be a wonderful little toy. Focus seems a little slow, but that may be a fisheye thing... I don't know. I am shooting 2nd at a wedding tomorrow and should have time to play with it while the main photog is shooting typical stuff. I will try to remember to report back after I have a chance to review what I get. so far it seems like a really sharp lens with great effect. Not a super extreem fisheye like the circular ones. It does come with a 2-part hood that allows circular vinetting, but of course it crops into the images so it doesn't give a 180 deg circle like a circular fisheye would.

Matt

Manfr3d · October 19, 2008

Don't forget the Sigma 10mm/2.8 EX DC Fisheye ... its for Crop cameras.

catspaw · October 19, 2008

Manfr3d wrote:

Don't forget the Sigma 10mm/2.8 EX DC Fisheye ... its for Crop cameras.

Mmm, excellent point. However, a D3 upgrade WILLL BE IN MY FUTURE, dangit, so I'm going for those that support FX for now ... I think. Oh the headache.

try this, I'll have to polarize:
77mm
72mm
67mm
62mm
55mm
52mm

And if I go with the Sigma 8.5, I'll have to go w/ gel filters but I suspect not as much filter use on that... maybe.

catspaw · October 19, 2008

mmmatt wrote:

I just picked up the sigma 15mm diag fisheye and so far it seems to be a wonderful little toy. Focus seems a little slow, but that may be a fisheye thing... I don't know. I am shooting 2nd at a wedding tomorrow and should have time to play with it while the main photog is shooting typical stuff. I will try to remember to report back after I have a chance to review what I get. so far it seems like a really sharp lens with great effect. Not a super extreem fisheye like the circular ones. It does come with a 2-part hood that allows circular vinetting, but of course it crops into the images so it doesn't give a 180 deg circle like a circular fisheye would.

Matt

Please do report back! I had a hood that would vinette (intentionally???) on my 10-20mm Sigma, but it's now at the bottom of the bowl of Delicate Arch in Moab. Alas.

Manfr3d · October 19, 2008

Also dont forget the Tokina 10-17mm/3.5-4.5 ATX Fisheye. It is designed for
crop cameras but fills the frame of a 35mm camera at 14 or 15mm .. so you
get a really inexpensive 14-17mm fisheye.

mmmatt · October 19, 2008

OK... first off this isn't meant to be a display of my awesome fisheye compositions... Some of these really suck! BUT, I was trying to find out how I can use this lens and what the lens can do. I'll post these based on what I learned about using a fisheye in general, and so you can see the quality of the lens. I did a little post work on these for white balance and exposure, but didn't sharpen or crop so you can see sharpness and field of view right out of the lens.

My first general fisheye observation is that it is a challenge to use the lens with flash, because you have to be so close to your subjexct that you easily get "flash blast" and/or if you are bouncing, it is so wide that you see the bounce on the ceiling. here are a few examples of that:

In terms of the 15mm diag effects, I am very happy. Closer objects like the face below distort more for obvious reasons. I was wondering if the 15mm diag would be enough effect for me and it is perfect in that regard. I wouldn't want the 8mm... I am pleased with my selection in focal length. Shooting with a full-frame 5d I really could not be happier. Note my fingers on the top of the focusing ring in the outdoor shot! OOPS!!!

As far as sharpness I am pretty satisfied... It ain't no L glass for sure, but for what it is used for it is pretty good. I don't foresee myself cropping into images from this lens because it takes away a lot of the effect so what's the point. I think with a fisheye it is all about the composition.

Here are a few more that I liked and that in my opinion are good uses for this lens. Shots that wouldn't have been possible without it. The "shot" shot below, was lit with bouncing behind my head.... that worked well!

So in summary... overall it is a quality lens, built well, looks nice, functions properly doesn't miss focus, reasonably sharp, light and compact, and most of all FUN!!! I recomend this for anyone using a full frame sensor, and although I didn't use it on my crop body, you can grab one of these and recrop it to see what that would be like in terms of effect.

Hope this helps!!
Matt

Photoskipper · October 20, 2008

catspaw wrote:

Mmm, excellent point. However, a D3 upgrade WILLL BE IN MY FUTURE, dangit, so I'm going for those that support FX for now ... I think. Oh the headache.

try this, I'll have to polarize:
77mm
72mm
67mm
62mm
55mm
52mm

And if I go with the Sigma 8.5, I'll have to go w/ gel filters but I suspect not as much filter use on that... maybe.

there are no choice of front lens filter for any ultrawide angle lens. Some of them not even have the screw thread for filter mounting. Gel is the only choice. Unfortunately, all the ultrawide angle lens does not have drop in gel filter slot neither. It makes the polarizer gel filter impossible. That is the reason I am not going for ultrawide lens. The maximum I have was the Tamron 11-18 for crop body, still able to mount the front lens filter.
The other one is the 17-40, using gel filter
I am trying to stay with 77 mm front lens diameter to save the time, money and weight on the filters. My line up for the 5D FF is 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F2.8.
The marco 100mm is using 52 mm which is same as the kit lens from 300D and 70-300 f4.5 -5.6, so waste.

I gave up the 16-35 as it use 82mm front lens.

mmmatt · October 20, 2008

Photoskipper wrote:

there are no choice of front lens filter for any ultrawide angle lens. Some of them not even have the screw thread for filter mounting. Gel is the only choice. Unfortunately, all the ultrawide angle lens does not have drop in gel filter slot neither. It makes the polarizer gel filter impossible. That is the reason I am not going for ultrawide lens. The maximum I have was the Tamron 11-18 for crop body, still able to mount the front lens filter.
The other one is the 17-40, using gel filter
I am trying to stay with 77 mm front lens diameter to save the time, money and weight on the filters. My line up for the 5D FF is 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F2.8.
The marco 100mm is using 52 mm which is same as the kit lens from 300D and 70-300 f4.5 -5.6, so waste.

I gave up the 16-35 as it use 82mm front lens.

I assume all fisheye lenses have a convex front element which would prevent the use of a front filter. With the sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye, you get the vignette hood that goes over the permanently placed petal hood. On a crop body, the vingette hood only vignettes very slightly in the corners, and the v hood is threaded for a 72mm filter. For ff non-v use, there is a recess in the rear of the lens for cut gels. The lens came with a steel "die" that you can use to trace around with an exacto and cut the proper size gel. This may be typical of fisheye lenses... I don't know.

Matt

catspaw · October 23, 2008

mmmatt wrote:

So in summary... overall it is a quality lens, built well, looks nice, functions properly doesn't miss focus, reasonably sharp, light and compact, and most of all FUN!!! I recomend this for anyone using a full frame sensor, and although I didn't use it on my crop body, you can grab one of these and recrop it to see what that would be like in terms of effect.

Hope this helps!!
Matt

Does help! thank you very much for the write up and time spent on that -- between that and the 10.5 I played w/ yesterday, I've a good idea of what I might want now .... as well as the THINGs I can do with it artistically

aktse · October 24, 2008

catspaw wrote:

Does help! thank you very much for the write up and time spent on that -- between that and the 10.5 I played w/ yesterday, I've a good idea of what I might want now .... as well as the THINGs I can do with it artistically

I think that's key! I have the 8mm fisheye and it's not always easy to find something interesting to shoot with something that wide!

What did you decide?

catspaw · October 24, 2008

aktse wrote:

I think that's key! I have the 8mm fisheye and it's not always easy to find something interesting to shoot with something that wide!

What did you decide?

Sigma 8mm

I *definitely* want the circular effect and with the D3 in my future, I'll get the full frame (FX) benefits as well.

now, just to be patient until I can get my pretties....

luckyrwe · November 9, 2008

Today I went out and got the Sigma 8mm/3.5 for my D700. I love it! I used to have the Nikkor 8mm/2.8 and sold it way back when. This Sigma is easier to carry and manage, and I love the results.

Yes, it works with full frame, the 4.5mm is for DG.

catspaw · November 9, 2008

luckyrwe wrote:

Today I went out and got the Sigma 8mm/3.5 for my D700. I love it! I used to have the Nikkor 8mm/2.8 and sold it way back when. This Sigma is easier to carry and manage, and I love the results.

Yes, it works with full frame, the 4.5mm is for DG.

Excellent to hear!! It's been my pick now for a few days, but will have too wait awhile since it's so 'cheap'

nightspidy · November 10, 2008

Sigma
I bought the Sigma 4.5mm 2.8 lens about 2 weeks ago and I'm having a lot of fun with it! I am so glad I bought this lens even though it cost over $1100CDN, but it was worth it. It has been like a breath of fresh air for me and has allowed me to get really creative. I'm sure you will enjoy your lens too

catspaw · November 10, 2008

nightspidy wrote:

I bought the Sigma 4.5mm 2.8 lens about 2 weeks ago and I'm having a lot of fun with it! I am so glad I bought this lens even though it cost over $1100CDN, but it was worth it. It has been like a breath of fresh air for me and has allowed me to get really creative. I'm sure you will enjoy your lens too

I've found SO very reviews of anyone who's owned and played with that lens -- it's a bit like it doesn't exist. I like it for the faster f stop than the 8mm, but without using them side by side I'm not sure what I can do with one that I can't with the other. I'd be interested if you DO have experience with other circular fish eyes and anything you can toss in about your new baby

:

Blurmore · November 10, 2008

Tokina 10-17 zoom fish.
I'm a big fan of the Tokina 10-17 Zoom Fish. It is a crop sensor only lens as it vignettes on a FF. For artistic purposes it is hard to beat. I use it at the 10MM range more than the 17...the 17 is pretty pointless as it is less fishy, but no where near rectilinear as my 17-55. It is ok sharp at f3.5 and stupid sharp at f5.6. CA's are there, and flare is EVERYWHERE but that is about par for the course with any under 1000 dollar WA lens. The CA's and flare aren't nearly as bad as say a Peleng, and the Tokina is AF (not that it is super necessary for a lens with this much DOF)

Here are some samples.

f8

f11

sports are the usual domain of the fish...

but it has a place in weddings too.

f6.3

f5 1/13 de-fished

f5 1/20

f5.6

this is some serious angle of view...180 degrees diagonal

oh and it retails for under 500

luckyrwe · November 11, 2008

What's some good de-fishing software that works with Photoshop Elements? I do not need full blown CS4 and really do not want to buy other expensive software.

Blurmore · November 11, 2008

luckyrwe wrote:

What's some good de-fishing software that works with Photoshop Elements? I do not need full blown CS4 and really do not want to buy other expensive software.

I use PTLens

luckyrwe · November 11, 2008

I have a Mac.

nightspidy · November 11, 2008

catspaw wrote:

I've found SO very reviews of anyone who's owned and played with that lens -- it's a bit like it doesn't exist. I like it for the faster f stop than the 8mm, but without using them side by side I'm not sure what I can do with one that I can't with the other. I'd be interested if you DO have experience with other circular fish eyes and anything you can toss in about your new baby :

I too had a very hard time finding worthwhile reviews also and was torn between the 8mm and the 4.5mm. What I did find out, from what I read and was told, the 8mm on my Canon 30D would not give me the full affect due to my censor size. When I went to the store I was able to try both lens' and I just didn't like what I was getting from the 8mm. I ended up getting the 4.5mm as I wanted the "full meal deal" fisheye look and I love, love, love (did I mention love?

) the speed - a prereq for my new lenses these days seems to be 2.8 and faster only.

Looking thru this lens is like looking into a crystal ball. I really love this lens. I'm not much of a technical person when it comes to sharing stuff like that, but I find it to be pleasingly sharp and easy to use. Like I said before, it has been a breath of fresh air for me and well worth the $$$ shelled out. I have been so amused, surprised and entertained by this lens more than I ever thought I would be. It will most likely accompany me on all of my journeys as the look is so unique and I feel like I am really creating something different. I bow down to this lens!

Hope this helps

Fish Eye lenses to the extreme - which one??

Comments