Fisheye Lenses

[jann1033]

like the fisheye playground shots in particular...
i saw some rations my bil had ( from the national guard, forget where he had been) and the present day ones didn't look a whole lot more appetizing, just boxed better

 

[Groucho]

This is an incredible shot! I usually pass right by water shots because they all look the same - but this one is outstanding.

Glad you had a good trip!

Thanks! That one's actually a fisheye shot, too, though it's kind of hard to tell - but that's why the horizon is dead center in the image. My wife was bugging me to take a photo over the water but I think she was thinking of the far coast, which appears much closer to the eye than the fisheye makes it look!

That looks like a lot of fun. Great pics, as usual.

What kind of camera is your Dad using?

Thanks, glad you like! My Dad is using his new Panasonic Lumix - I don't remember the exact model, but it's 18x zoom... I think it's 12mp, or maybe 10mp... he seems very happy with it; of course, he was upgrading from an old Canon 4mp A-series which has been held together with duct tape for probably at least three years or so, so anything was probably going to feel like an upgrade. I like that it has a nice big lens hood on it. I need to pick up a couple more lens hoods, especially for my 55mm F1.2 - that thing gets horrendous flare if you don't shield it somehow.

like the fisheye playground shots in particular...
i saw some rations my bil had ( from the national guard, forget where he had been) and the present day ones didn't look a whole lot more appetizing, just boxed better

I know some folks are disappointed if I don't post fisheyes. I really like the sneaker one with my niece on the playground, I think that one turned out pretty nicely. As for the rations, my Dad is a Navy vet but I didn't think to ask him what he had to eat back then. I'm sure it wasn't exactly Victoria and Albert's!

Here's a few bonus fisheyes for you...

This one is only 1' or so higher than the shot posted earlier but with the fisheye, that makes a big difference...

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm thinking of renting a lens for our upcoming trip. I want to try for a little different look for some of my photos after several trips. I love the wide angle shots I've seen, but can't decide between the canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16 fisheye. My walking around lens is the Tamron 18-270 VC, so I can already get down to 18.

Any thoughts on wide angle v. the fisheye? Any examples you can post?

 

[annnewjerz]

I'm thinking of renting a lens for our upcoming trip. I want to try for a little different look for some of my photos after several trips. I love the wide angle shots I've seen, but can't decide between the canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16 fisheye. My walking around lens is the Tamron 18-270 VC, so I can already get down to 18.

Any thoughts on wide angle v. the fisheye? Any examples you can post?

Both of the lenses you listed are wide angle lenses. Are you thinking of the Tokina 10-17??

 

[KarenAylwood]

Maybe this is just me not being knowledgable...

But as far as I know, the Tokina 11-16 isn't a fisheye lens. Do you mean the 10-17mm?

The Tokina 11-16mm is the next lens I plan to buy and I looked at a few wide angle lenses.

As for picking one or the other, I'd pick the Tokina because it has a wider aperture. f/2.8 vs f/3.5-4.5. You can shoot at longer shutter speeds and in low light.

 

[mom2rtk]

Sorry, I did mean the 10-17... I've clearly been looking at too many options today......

 

[annnewjerz]

Sorry, I did mean the 10-17... I've clearly been looking at too many options today......

Well in that case, I'd check out BobQuincy's photos (he has a lot with the Canon 10-22) and also take a look at WillowBelle's recent trip report---she rented the Tokina 10-17 and took her fair share of fisheye shots. Groucho may also have the same lens, I know fisheyes are his "signature" type of shots---but never knew what lens he used.

I would say both have a definite learning curve and will be a little tricky to get the hang of from just renting. I currently have the Tokina 11-16 and am borrowing the Nikon 10.5 fisheye and I can tell you they are two completely different ballgames.

The 10.5 is fun, but takes a lot more thought in terms of what to put in the shot to properly demonstrate the distortion (i.e. things with straight lines, buildings, etc.)

The UWA lens I haven't shot much with yet, but it seems that a common problem with people using these lenses is that they use it as a way to "fit everything in" to their frame. So instead of getting a nicely composed shot, they often get a shot with a lot of dead space on the top and bottom of the frame just to fit everything in width-wise.

Both seem like a ton of fun and I'm sure you wont be disappointed with either.

 

[WDWFigment]

What other lenses do you have besides the 18-270? If none, I wouldn't get the fisheye. Both the UWA and the Fish are more 'niche' lenses, but of the two, the fish has a steeper learning curve and has more of a niche (what I mean by that is it's not suited for shooting any ole subject).

If I had to suggest one, I'd suggest the UWA. Honestly, though, if the answer to my first question is that the 18-270 is your only lens, I'd recommend buying a 50 1.8 for this trip. It'd be about the same cost as renting either lenses (okay, a little more--but you'd get to keep it!) and it has a lot more utility and not as steep of a learning curve.

 

[mom2rtk]

What other lenses do you have besides the 18-270? If none, I wouldn't get the fisheye. Both the UWA and the Fish are more 'niche' lenses, but of the two, the fish has a steeper learning curve and has more of a niche (what I mean by that is it's not suited for shooting any ole subject).

If I had to suggest one, I'd suggest the UWA. Honestly, though, if the answer to my first question is that the 18-270 is your only lens, I'd recommend buying a 50 1.8 for this trip. It'd be about the same cost as renting either lenses (okay, a little more--but you'd get to keep it!) and it has a lot more utility and not as steep of a learning curve.

Well... I have the kit lens and I do have the 50mm f1.8. The more I thought about it though, the more I think I'm not going to like the 50mm thing. So I'm thinking of renting the Sigma 30mm f1.4. (If I had time and enough cash, I'd probably just sell the 50mm 1.8 and buy the 30mm 1.4) Once I started checking out rental lenses, it got me thinking about the UWA's and fisheyes just for a few shots with a different effect.

What do you recommend?

 

[Groucho]

Well in that case, I'd check out BobQuincy's photos (he has a lot with the Canon 10-22) and also take a look at WillowBelle's recent trip report---she rented the Tokina 10-17 and took her fair share of fisheye shots. Groucho may also have the same lens, I know fisheyes are his "signature" type of shots---but never knew what lens he used.

I use a Pentax 10-17mm lens, which from what I understand is basically the same optical formula as the Tokina 10-17mm (Pentax & Tokina share some lenses like the 10-17mm fisheye, 16-50mm F2.8, and 50-135mm F2.8, all of which are Pentax optical designs available either as Tokinas with their own lens coatings and barrel design, or as Pentaxes with Pentax's proprietary SMC lens coating and their own barrel design (weather-sealed in the case of the 16-50 and 50-135.)

That's a long way of saying that my fisheye shots are virtually the same as you'd get with the Tokina lens on a non-Pentax DSLR. (Potentially a little more lens flare on the Tokina due to the different coating.)

As is probably obvious, I'm a big fisheye fan. The UWA rectilinear lenses don't really do it for me. 16mm on my APS-sensor DSLR is plenty wide enough for me for non-fisheye shots; after that, I prefer not only the look but the flexibility of the fisheye. You can get quite a variety of "looks" depending on where you point it, and the zoom lets you get photos that aren't all that removed from an UWA shot in terms of distortion - plus you can mostly remove that in PP, but you can't take a non-fisheye and make it fishy. My only complain is that it's not F2.8, but that's the price you pay for it being a zoom.

I'd actually really like to try the new Samyang 8mm fisheye but would have a hard time justifying the cost... but it is a good bit cheaper than a new OEM fisheye.

 

[Metallicat]

If you are wanting to take fisheye pictures of landscapes, buildings and such, outside in the daytime, I highly recommend the Tokina 10-17. I ordered the Canon 10-22 and found that it really wasn't all that fishy. just wide. sent it back and bought the Tokina 10-17 and got the fisheye pictures I was looking for.

DD took this picture. I believe it was taken with the Tokina 10-17 for Nikon. I use the Canon Rebel XSI with the Tokina for Canon.

 

[WDWFigment]

Well... I have the kit lens and I do have the 50mm f1.8. The more I thought about it though, the more I think I'm not going to like the 50mm thing. So I'm thinking of renting the Sigma 30mm f1.4. (If I had time and enough cash, I'd probably just sell the 50mm 1.8 and buy the 30mm 1.4) Once I started checking out rental lenses, it got me thinking about the UWA's and fisheyes just for a few shots with a different effect.

What do you recommend?

I would get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If I recall correctly, you wanted to be able to get nice shots of you/your daughter at character meals in a manner that will show her/your dresses. Your daughter is only young once, get that lens now so you can get those shots. Worry about the artistic stuff later.

If you do get it, and want advice for using it for portraits, let me know.

I would recommend getting the 35mm f/1.8, but I think for your purposes, the 5mm extra in length is really pushing it. Plus, that lens can be a little hard to find.

The lenses I have are:
Nikkor 18-200
Nikkor 50 f/1.8
Sigma 30 f/1.4
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Without considering dark rides (which would definitely make it #1), the Sigma 30 is probably my most used lens. I think this sentiment is shared by a lot of folks around here. If you have the means, I would recommend buying it, not renting. Then again, I've made my strong aversion to renting known here in the past.

I use a Pentax 10-17mm lens, which from what I understand is basically the same optical formula as the Tokina 10-17mm (Pentax & Tokina share some lenses like the 10-17mm fisheye, 16-50mm F2.8, and 50-135mm F2.8, all of which are Pentax optical designs available either as Tokinas with their own lens coatings and barrel design, or as Pentaxes with Pentax's proprietary SMC lens coating and their own barrel design (weather-sealed in the case of the 16-50 and 50-135.)

That's a long way of saying that my fisheye shots are virtually the same as you'd get with the Tokina lens on a non-Pentax DSLR. (Potentially a little more lens flare on the Tokina due to the different coating.)

As is probably obvious, I'm a big fisheye fan. The UWA rectilinear lenses don't really do it for me. 16mm on my APS-sensor DSLR is plenty wide enough for me for non-fisheye shots; after that, I prefer not only the look but the flexibility of the fisheye. You can get quite a variety of "looks" depending on where you point it, and the zoom lets you get photos that aren't all that removed from an UWA shot in terms of distortion - plus you can mostly remove that in PP, but you can't take a non-fisheye and make it fishy. My only complain is that it's not F2.8, but that's the price you pay for it being a zoom.

I'd actually really like to try the new Samyang 8mm fisheye but would have a hard time justifying the cost... but it is a good bit cheaper than a new OEM fisheye.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but thanks for these explanations. You and a few others here are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the technical and boiling things down to lay terms. Thanks.

 

[mom2rtk]

Many thanks for your input Tom! I'm not technically very savvy as a photographer, but with everyone's help here, I'm learning a lot.

I think the 30mm is a definite. I hear you on buying it, but I just don't think I can swing it before the trip. It will be high up on my list for purchase down the road.

And YES, I would love to have some suggestions on using it for portraits.

Would you use it more for a general walkaround lens?

I wish I had it as my own, but really did feel strongly about the 18-270 with VC. My son is on the school soccer team, and in high school they don't let you sit on the sidelines for closer shots. My problem, like many of you, is that I'm finding I need them ALL!

 

[mom2rtk]

If you are wanting to take fisheye pictures of landscapes, buildings and such, outside in the daytime, I highly recommend the Tokina 10-17. I ordered the Canon 10-22 and found that it really wasn't all that fishy. just wide. sent it back and bought the Tokina 10-17 and got the fisheye pictures I was looking for.

DD took this picture. I believe it was taken with the Tokina 10-17 for Nikon. I use the Canon Rebel XSI with the Tokina for Canon.

This is a very helpful post. I think I too would not be happy with just the wider capability. After thinking on it and seeing everyone's posts, I think the Tokina is the better route. I think what I am looking for is the rounded look. I think for Disney, it conveys more of an animated dreamy look.

So I'm definitely in for the 30mm f1.4 (thanks Figment!) and now just have to decide if I want to try the fisheye Tokina this trip or save it for another!

 

[annnewjerz]

I totally agree with Tom when I say that my Sigma 30 is my most used lens. On the past few outings I've had with my camera, I've used the Sigma 30 for probably 90% of my shots and really enjoy it. The color rendition from the lens, the nice dreamy look when you use it open wide and the clarity and sharpness when using it stopped down are all excellent. I have taken a few portraits with this lens and think it works really well---but I also really loved the Nikon 50 and you don't, so you don't necessarily need to take my advice.

Here are a few portraits (or what I would consider portraits, maybe not what everyone would):

 

[Groucho]

If you are wanting to take fisheye pictures of landscapes, buildings and such, outside in the daytime, I highly recommend the Tokina 10-17. I ordered the Canon 10-22 and found that it really wasn't all that fishy. just wide. sent it back and bought the Tokina 10-17 and got the fisheye pictures I was looking for.

That would make sense, since the 10-22 is not a fisheye lens. Canon doesn't make a fisheye for their APS-sensor cameras; you have to go with a third-party one. The 10-22 is a ultra-wide-angle and attempts to not have any fisheye distortion. Also, nobody makes a fisheye zoom other than the Tokina/Pentax lens.

I would get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If I recall correctly, you wanted to be able to get nice shots of you/your daughter at character meals in a manner that will show her/your dresses. Your daughter is only young once, get that lens now so you can get those shots. Worry about the artistic stuff later.

I think 30mm is not wide enough for character meals... In previous trips, I tried to use a Tamron 28-75mm for character meals and found it not wide enough, to the point where at least once, I grabbed the 18-55mm kit lens off my wife's camera and used that instead. This varies of course depending on the location, but I definitely found issues with 28mm not being wide enough, much less 30mm.

Character meals are one of the times where I think a zoom is the way to go, since you're usually stuck in pretty much one place but you need different focal lengths quickly depending on where the characters are and what they do.

 

[mom2rtk]

OK, you all have me checking pockets and sofas for loose money so I can get the 30mm f1.4 .......

 

[annnewjerz]

So, as the proud new owner of a Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, I decided to take the advice of some experienced fisheye shooters on Nikon Cafe and download Image Trends' Fisheye-Hemi plugin. Jeff asked that I post some before and afters, so here ya go!

The main purpose of this plugin is to straighten the vertical lines of a photo taken with a fisheye lens, while the horizontal lines stay nice and curvy. This allows you to un-distort (had to add a - b/c apparently un-distort without the - gets censored by the DIS) people, allowing you to use this lens for portraits of the goofy and non-goofy variety.

Here are some sample shots. The first will be the original and the second will be the photo with the filter used with no additional cropping. Sorry in advance for the quality of the photos. They were either garbage from our trip to WDW in October or a few boring test shots I took this weekend in the middle of getting 22 inches of snow.

While I think this filter does a great job at straightening out the lines in a fisheye photo, it can only do so much. Here is an example of a shot that I took this weekend that just couldn't be straightened.

I also don't think the filter is appropriate to use for every photo. While I did go through my small library of fisheye shots and apply it to every one just to post as examples, I do think some of them (the window shot) look a little odd with straight vertical lines but very dramatically curved horizontal lines. I think the main uses for this filter (for me) will be for architectural shots where the buildings show some distortion, as well as shots that have people in them that look a little wonky.

For $30, I think it's a great tool to have in my post-processing bag now that I own the fisheye lens. I'm hoping to put it to good use and when I come up with better examples of what this filter can be used for, I'll be sure to add them.

If you have any questions, let me know!

 

[mrsklamc]

Just wondered if anyone had examples.

 

[WillowBelle]

Here's a few.....