wide angle lenses

[Lachesis00]

I see these ALL the time on ebay but do not see people talk about them much on the boards and know no one who owns a wide angle in real life. Especially these fish eye lens.

Can you post some photos and reasons why you might want the macro lens as well as the fisheye/wide angle.

Macro I have an idea. The other 2, not so much. I am ready to be enlightened!!

 

[Metallicat]

I just got my Sigma 10-22 mm lens about an hour ago. I noticed that when I stood right up next to the edge of the pool looking down at the cover, the entire pool and more was in the picture. neat-o! I'm sure I'm going to love this lens. I would post the picture, but my back yard is a mess.

I have the Canon 100 mm macro lens and it is my favorite lens in the bunch. only because I can take close up shots of bugs, flowers and stuff. it is an EXCELLENT portrait lens too. here is a picture of some bees from last summer. pictures not all that great coz I just got my Rebel and was trying it out.

 

[mabas9395]

When you say "wide angle lens", that can mean different things to different people, especially when you put it on different cameras (a 17mm might be pretty wide on a full frame camera but not so much on a camera with a 1.6 crop, then it becomes a 27mm equivalent).

That being said, I badly want an ultra wide angle lens. From all of the samples I have seen (and I've looked at a lot), it just looks like a FUN lens to shoot with. You can get majestic landscapes but some of the close up stuff gives your photos a fun new perspective.

There aren't as many lenses that give you true fish eye effect with so many of the digital cameras having a crop.

I am currently trying to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8 NON IS vs a short list of other things that include the Canon 10-22 (plus a tripod, grip, etc). Tough call. Maybe I'll just get both and try to hide them from the wife. That will work for about a week or so then I'll be sleeping in the garage... but it would be worth it.

 

[handicap18]

The majority of non-macro lenses will allow you focus somewhere beteen 12 inches an 18 inches or so away from your subject. That may seem pretty close, but its really not. A true macro lens will allow you to get your lens and focus as close as 2 or 3 inches from the subject. Thus allowing to get great detail of a specific area or something or get a very tiny object to fill the frame. There are different degree's of Macro. A true macro gives you a 1:1 ratio. Basically true size. Most of the zoom lenses that have a macro feature are 1:2 or even up to 1:4. 1/2 or 1/4 true size.

Wide angle is basically considered any angle wider than normal with normal being about the 50mm lens. There are prime wide angle lenses 10mm 14mm 20mm 24mm 28mm for example and zoom wide angle lenses, 10-20, 18-55, 12-24. Super Wide angles are those that are in the 8-15mm range.

Fish eye can come in a number of different focal lengths, 8mm 10mm and 15mm are some that I've seen. I belive Groucho has a 16mm fish eye. The lens is shaped more like the eye of a fish and also gives the picture that same look, the edges are very much rounded as though your looking through the eye of a fish. They can be a fun lens to play around with, but its not a lens that is suited for everyone. I'm really not that into the fish eye look.

I really like the super wide angle lenses like the 10-20mm. That gives a great prespective. Used a lot with landscapes and buildings.

 

[jann1033]

i was just reading about fish eye lenses so this is second hand but the article said a fish eye lens on a digital is not as pronounced as on a film.
i just posted a few photos on the extension tube thread with my cheapy phoenix 100mm macro( think it's 1/2 or more less than the canon version) that took pretty sharp pics i thought( it was well reviewed a number of places but cynic that i am i figured it would not be true ).
i think oblio posted a couple wide photos on the favorites of 06 thread a week or so ago..i found it post 16 but it was takingforever to download so i didn't post a link

 

[Groucho]

Jann is absolutely correct, the crop factor removes much of the fishiness.

I love my Zenitar 16mm fisheye. It's available straight from Russia via eBay seller "zenitar" in Pentax, Pentax screwmount (M42), and Nikon mounts, and I believe some sellers sell the M42 one with an EOS adapter for Canons, and supposedly a few even have "real" EOS mounts on them. It's cheap ($125-150), has quite good optical quality (probably not up to $500-600 fisheye level but still very good), and is a ton of fun! But, it is fully manual. Manual focus, manual aperture, manual everything. You need to have your camera in full manual mode and "stop down" to meter, to have it set the shutter speed and ISO.

The manual focusing is really not much of an issue, though, because pretty much everything farther than 2.5' feet away is in focus. Talk about your depth of field! It's also a fairly fast lens (2.8).

Pentax makes a 10-17mm fisheye that is well regarded, and this same lens is apparently now being sold by Tokina in a Canon and Nikon mount, so is an option if you have the money. (Over $500.) Supposedly this was, at least for a while, the only lens that gave you full 180' fishiness on an APC-sensor DSLR.

Which leads up back to the crop factor. If I put the Zenitar on my 35mm Pentax, I get 180' of vision. (I'm picking up my film tomorrow so I should have some examples to post after I scan them - it's really something! You have to be very careful that your fingers and even your feet don't end up in the photo!) When I put it on my DSLR, I get closer to maybe 100' or so, and the fish effect is less pronounced because the really curvy edges are cropped off.

Here's an example of a shot taken with the Zenitar. Here the fishiness is fairly apparently due to the straight lines near the edges of the frame.

Here's another example.

The wide view and huge DoF make it a terrific lens for taking on-ride photos (as long as the light is fairly constant, because of the manual metering):

As you can see, in some photos, it's hard to even tell that it's a fisheye.

I would love to move up to a "true" 180'-on-DSLR fisheye in the future, but for the moment, I'm loving the Zenitar. It's a blast and relatively cheap. I also used it a bit for fireworks photos - I often cropped the resulting photos, but there was no concern about some fireworks going up too high and disappearing out of frame!

I also hope to pick up a fast non-fish wide-angle - ideal would be maybe an 18mm 1.8 or so, I'm not sure that one is available for my camera at this point though. Actually, I think there is a non-fish 16mm 1.8 but it's not cheap.

As for macro, I don't have a "true" macro lens - one of these days, but I'm not really into that at this point, and I definitely don't think they're much use at Disney (outside of maybe the occasional flower photo).

 

[jann1033]

You have to be very careful that your fingers and even your feet don't end up in the photo!)\.

i deleted to save space..

so should we be expecting another incognito self portrait of your feet?
really like the one with the btmr engine..very nice

tokina also makes a 12-24mm lens that is supposed to be good and is around $480-500 i think..that's second to next on my "list"

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A true macro gives you a 1:1 ratio. Basically true size.

The 1:1 indicates that the size of an object as close to the lens as it will focus will be the same size as the image of that object on the sensor. In other words, if you're sensor is 35mm across, you could take a picture of something only 35mm wide and have it fill the entire frame.

 

[Groucho]

so should we be expecting another incognito self portrait of your feet?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................... no!

If something ghastly like that actually happened, I'd crop before sharing. Actually, most of my "full fish" photos I took pointing slightly upwards - there are some interesting places, I'm looking forward to seeing how the photos turned out. Unfortunately, I lost probably 20 of them as I didn't load the b/w film properly - I didn't think it felt was it was advancing properly and sure enough, I finally checked and after 20+ photos, the film was still on the leader. I'm out of practice on loading film! (And I forgot what a pain in the butt it is!)

really like the one with the btmr engine..very nice

Thanks, I'm really happy with how that one turned out. I took quite a few and that's probably my favorite. If you look closely, the WDW train is going by in the background, too.

tokina also makes a 12-24mm lens that is supposed to be good and is around $480-500 i think..that's second to next on my "list"

I would make sure that it's wide enough to get the full fisheye on your camera - I'd be bummed to spend that kind of money only to find out that it's only slightly fishy, which is fine if it's what you're expecting - but for that money, I want full fish!

(And I don't even like seafood!)

I only say that because I know there are 10mm and even 8mm ones out there, I'm not sure what it'll take for 180' with your crop factor, but the full effect is really quite fun and makes you look at things in a whole different way. On a future trip, I could almost see taking a day and using the fisheye and the film camera exclusively, to force myself to think about it - compositing the picture is very different because unlike normal pictures, you're not photographing what the eye sees.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

'm not sure what it'll take for 180' with your crop factor, but the full effect is really quite fun and makes you look at things in a whole different way.

180? That's for wimps. You need a film Nikon body with a Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Carry that along with one of these and you should be covered for both ends.

 

[Groucho]

I guess that's good if you want to film your own "Almost-Circlevision 220" movie!

And why merely 1200, the first link has a link to their 2000mm lens. I'm sure we'd both have both lenses in our collection if their weren't Nikkor!

BTW, this was one of the pages about the Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm coming out in other mounts. It's a pretty lens but not especially fast (3.5-4.5) - darn those zooms!

 

[jann1033]

180? That's for wimps. You need a film Nikon body with a Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Carry that along with one of these and you should be covered for both ends.

these are the only articles that i recall seeing that basically warn you against buying them..pretty funny.i'll put them way on the bottom of my last page of things i want to get

 

[MarkBarbieri]

And why merely 1200, the first link has a link to their 2000mm lens.

I was concerned that the 2000mm lens wouldn't be practical for use at WDW.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

BTW, a fisheye isn't simply a really wide lens. A fisheye is a lens that takes a really wide picture and doesn't correct the curviture distortion. You can have really wide lenses that are not fisheye lenses. They are called rectilinear lenses.

The problem with rectilinear lenses is that they are harder to make the wider they get. Even with correction, many wide angle lenses have some barrel distortion.

With modern software, "defishing" (correcting the distortion on post-production) has become much easier. A lot of people also like the fisheye look for some subjects.

 

[tinksdad]

180? That's for wimps. You need a film Nikon body with a Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Carry that along with one of these and you should be covered for both ends.

NICE!! You're right about not being a wimp...... did you see how much that thing weighed??? 5200g!!!! That's almost 11.5 pounds! The 2000mm weighs 38.5 pounds, now you need another tripod!!

 

[handicap18]

2000mm mounted on a dSLR with a 1.5 crop factor To heck with getting pictures of the moon, we're talking Mars and Venus with that baby!!!

 

[Lachesis00]

I may have to look into these lens especially if the f/stop is low. You guys are awesome! AWE-SOME!

 

[Groucho]

Back on topic... I got my 35mm film back today. I have to go do some stuff but just had to quickly put up a couple examples of why a fish-eye can be so much fun. (These were fairly quickly scanned on my flatbed scanner so please excuse any dust or other such issues.)

Try taking shots like that with a "normal" lens!

 

[jann1033]

if the 1/focal length still applies would you ever really need IS for something like 17-55mm lens?

 

[mabas9395]

First of all, I haven't heard of any Ultra Wide Angles (10-22) lenses that have IS. But it depends on what you are shooting. They don't make UWA lenses super fast which is fine for outdoor shots, but a lot of people like to use them indoors either for a unique perspective on regular shots but also for indoor architecture. Unfortunately, if you want a sharp indoor shot in low light at f/4 or f/5.6 and ISO less than 400, you are going to have to use a tripod. I just got a new Manfrotto tripod and those things aren't light! Instead of having to carry one around you could just put IS on the lens. It would help with night time outdoor shots too, I've seen some great nighttime skyline shots with a UWA.

So is IS needed? Probably not. Would it be useful? I'm sure it would in certain circumstances. Would I pay an extra $500 for an UWA with IS? Not a chance.