Fisheye Lenses

[WDWFigment]

Fisheyes... Nikon... crop sensor... options...

1. Nikon 10.5 F2.8 - relatively fast, full fisheye (though not as wide as some others)
2. Sigma 10mm F2.8 - probably comparable. Surprisingly large - I'm not sure how big the Nikon is, but when we put Code's rented Sigma against my Pentax 10-17mm, the Sigma was much, much larger.
3. Tokina 10-17mm - well, I know all about the optics on that one. The zoom is very handy but I do miss the speed of the F2.8.
4. Zenitar 16mm F2.8... really nice lens, well-loved by most owners, but of course not full fish on an APS. Still very wide, though - remember than 16mm in a fisheye will give you a much wider shot than 16mm on a rectilinear lens. This is, of course, my go-to lens for fisheye on my FF Pentax cameras. (You know - the kind where you open up the back and put this little cylinder in one end and thread it into a spindle on the other side... I've actually been carrying around one of my K1000s a lot the past week or two.) There are probably many other full-frame-compatible fisheyes you could also consider if going down that road, including the Sigma 15mm.
5. Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Vivitar Series 1 (theirs is marked as 7mm) F3.5... a little slower but by most accounts, a very capable fisheye. I'm very curious about this one myself... not quite enough to buy another fisheye... but if it was an F2.8, I would seriously consider it!
6. Peleng 8mm F3.5 circular fisheye - this gives a fully round image on a full-frame and has vignetting in the corners on a crop sensor. It's a nutty one.
7. Lensbaby Composer with 12mm fisheye optic. This is a really odd duck - I will probably have to try it out one of these days. You get circular fisheye on full-frame, or nearly - presumably it moves around depending on how you adjust the Lensbaby itself.

There may be others but that's what I can think of all the top of my head.

Does your camera have the ability to do stop-down metering? If so, the lack of metering isn't such a huge deal - the only time I recall it being an annoyance for me (my Zenitar requires stop-down metering) was when shooting on Splash Mt and trying to quickly meter at the top of the big drop!

Annnewjerz, no stop-down metering for you? If you have that, there's no need to guess and take test photos...

Thanks for the comparison. Despite never having touched any of the three, I initially ranked the Tokina lower than the Nikon and Sigma because it wasn't f2.8. However, I also thought the range wouldn't be that beneficial. Can you speak to that at all? As of right now, my rankings are T1. Nikon, T1. Sigma, 3. Tokina. If there is a compelling justification for the 10-17 range, I may rank them all equally, then just buy whatever comes along cheapest first.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

There is something mildly amusing about a zoom fisheye.

I want to go really, really, really wide...well, not that wide, let me zoom in a bit.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for the comparison. Despite never having touched any of the three, I initially ranked the Tokina lower than the Nikon and Sigma because it wasn't f2.8. However, I also thought the range wouldn't be that beneficial. Can you speak to that at all? As of right now, my rankings are T1. Nikon, T1. Sigma, 3. Tokina. If there is a compelling justification for the 10-17 range, I may rank them all equally, then just buy whatever comes along cheapest first.

It is not necessarily better or worse - it is different. The zoom gives you much more flexibility - from full fisheye effect to something not terribly dissimilar from your normal rectinlinear UWA (and which can easily be straightened into a similar image.) It's not unlike having a zoom on any other lens.

F2.8 is nice but really - it's only 2/3rds of a stop different at its widest.

Optically, they are pretty comparable. The Nikon may have a slight edge in CAs but that's about it. (CAs and purple fringing are a weakness of UWA and fisheyes on crop-sensor cameras, unfortunately.) Size-wise, the Nikon is even smaller than the Tokina while the Sigma is relatively enormous and a bit heavier, too.

Ultimately, I doubt you'll find any unhappy owners of any of them...

 

[Scottwdw]

Here's one but it's MF and less than $300.

http://www.adorama.com/PRO835NK.html

 

[Code]

Here's one but it's MF and less than $300.

http://www.adorama.com/PRO835NK.html

Same as mine just a different branding (Rokinon). There's no electronics in the lens so with Nikon it won't meter on a D90 (only D300,200,100)

 

[WDWFigment]

It is not necessarily better or worse - it is different. The zoom gives you much more flexibility - from full fisheye effect to something not terribly dissimilar from your normal rectinlinear UWA (and which can easily be straightened into a similar image.) It's not unlike having a zoom on any other lens.

F2.8 is nice but really - it's only 2/3rds of a stop different at its widest.

Optically, they are pretty comparable. The Nikon may have a slight edge in CAs but that's about it. (CAs and purple fringing are a weakness of UWA and fisheyes on crop-sensor cameras, unfortunately.) Size-wise, the Nikon is even smaller than the Tokina while the Sigma is relatively enormous and a bit heavier, too.

Ultimately, I doubt you'll find any unhappy owners of any of them...

Thank you, this settles it for me. The Sigma or Nikon it is. I don't care if the lens is larger, and I don't care about the ability to use it as a quasi-UWA (I have the Tokina for that). This lens is solely about going Fishy.

Since I'd like the ability to grab fisheye shots on dark rides, and 2.8 really pushes the bounds of my high ISO capabilities, it is important to me to keep it at 2.8. Now it might not be a big deal if I planned on upgrading to a DX camera released in the future that has better high ISO capabilities (thus making it not matter as much if I went to 3.5), but I think this will likely be my last DX camera, so I'll be selling whatever fisheye lens I buy now at some point before the next camera upgrade, anyway.

 

[spinetnglr]

I have the Nikon 10.5 fisheye and I really like the lens. Its fun to use, I just don't use it often. Its definately a specialty kind of lens that has limited use but fun when you do use it. I picked mine up on Craigslist for about $225 under B&H price. The guy said he bought it for shooting motocross and after shooting about 25 frames with it found out it wasnt what he wanted. He was anxious to sell it to get anything out of it to put the $ towards another lens. His loss was my gain. If I hadn't found that one at a good price its probably not a lens I would have spent $600.00 - $700.00 on.

 

[wisbucky]

You were all so helpful when I was looking for a lens to take photos of wildlife. So I am hoping you can give me some quick helpful advice, as I need to pick up this lens by next weekend.

I own the Sony A550 camera. Love it to death.
I need a lens that can take wide-angle photos of rooms in a house. And I need to have high quality photos. If I can get a way with just purchasing an adapter would be sufficient or a conversion lens or do I need to pay the higher amount for a lens such as a sigma 10-20. I am not really well educated on such lenses and need help

 

[zackiedawg]

My guess is an adapter wouldn't be that great of an option - low optical quality will likely give horrible corner blurriness, and you'll lose a stop or two of light as well - and still not likely get as wide as a decidated wide angle lens would give you. So a wide-angle lens is probably the best way to go.

I use the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 lens - the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5 is fairly comparable, though the Tamron has a slight edge in aperture. Even a little faster is the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, though also more expensive. You might also be able to find one of these used if you're lucky - check out keh or b&h for some options - you can include the Sony 11-18mm lens, which normally runs around the price of the Tokina, but used might be closer to the Tamron & Sigma.

Either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24 should be just under $500.

 

[wisbucky]

My guess is an adapter wouldn't be that great of an option - low optical quality will likely give horrible corner blurriness, and you'll lose a stop or two of light as well - and still not likely get as wide as a decidated wide angle lens would give you. So a wide-angle lens is probably the best way to go.

I use the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 lens - the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5 is fairly comparable, though the Tamron has a slight edge in aperture. Even a little faster is the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, though also more expensive. You might also be able to find one of these used if you're lucky - check out keh or b&h for some options - you can include the Sony 11-18mm lens, which normally runs around the price of the Tokina, but used might be closer to the Tamron & Sigma.

Either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24 should be just under $500.

Thanks much for the info. Any hints towards what would be a great flexible lens for inside room photos and night shots such as fireworks.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks much for the info. Any hints towards what would be a great flexible lens for inside room photos and night shots such as fireworks.

All the lenses that zackiedawg recommended will be able to do what you wish. If you are needing the lens for something like real estate you'll be able to do very well with any of the lenses and a tripod - then you won't need to worry about the speed of the lens as much. And - the tripod will be the biggest help to get the best firework shots also. Any of the lenses listed could be used for fireworks but you might end up doing some cropping depending on how close you are to the fireworks and depending on what you want to show in the photo. I looked at some EXIF info and found that when I was shooting Illuminations from the railing I was in the 16-24mm range - I most often have used my 16-80mm lens for fireworks but used the wider end for the shots - at least at Epcot. MK and other places it will just depend. I was recently at DL and shot fireworks from Frontierland and was using 20-30mm for the shots. If you got the kit lens with your A550 it should also work fine for fireworks.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and think it's a very good lens but if I were buying today would probably look at the Tamron 10-24 for the greater range and slight edge on speed or else the Tokina for the 2.8.

edit - I just realized your title said fisheye for the Sony A550. A fisheye could be used for interior room photos but you would need to correct for distortion unless you really wanted the fishy look. There are a few manual focus fisheye lenses or else the only one I'd recommend for the A550 that auto focuses is the Sigma 10mm f/2.8. Wide angle is probably more what you are looking for though.

 

[foolishmortal]

I have this exact lens for my a330

http://www.overstock.com/Electronic...SLR-Fish-eye-Camera-Lens/4313555/product.html


i love it!

 

[wisbucky]

I have this exact lens for my a330

http://www.overstock.com/Electronic...SLR-Fish-eye-Camera-Lens/4313555/product.html


i love it!

Does it do what you want? I am a little hestitant on a fixed focus length to use. I have a tendancy to get quickly frustrated if I cant zoom in and out.

 

[wisbucky]

Well I searched throughly and gave it a lot of thought and I ended up purchasing the Tokina 11mm-16mm. I liked the quicker aperture. Since I am wanting to give a try for the night parades at Disney and fireworks I decided it would work the best. The Tamron has a $50 rebate and was so tempting but I decided I really would use the lens more if it had the quicker aperture.

 

[zackiedawg]

Congrats! Should be a great lens - it reviews very well and most owners are quite happy with it. And the extra aperture should come in handy.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Congrats on the new lens!

 

[wisbucky]

I should have the lens by Thursday I was told. Cant wait.

 

[Gdad]

Question for Nikon users or whoever else may be familiar with 3rd party lenses- What is the best fisheye out there right now for APS-C cameras?

Nikon 10.5mm?
Sigma 10mm?
Tokina 10-17mm?
Something I missed?

 

[WDWFigment]

I am not at all fond of the Tokina 10-17. I don't think the IQ is that good, I don't use the zoom, and the coating seems prone to flair (although this seems to be typical of Tokinas...or so I've read).

I'm sure Groucho will defend it, as I think the Pentax version (they're the same, apparently) is his fisheye of choice.

I wish I would have gotten the Sigma.

 

[Gdad]

I am leaning toward the Sigma right now too. Especially since I already have an UWA in mid.