 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Fisheye lenses
OK. I'm still waffling, and won't have the money for any of it for a few weeks, but... Sigma & Peneng 8mm fisheye lenses have their obvious advantages on a 1.5 multiple factor Pentax. The primary Peneng advantage is its under $250 cost, ready to use. IIRC, the Sigma is spitting on $700 plus shipping. I have to wonder how the 15mm Sigma ($469) is going to compare to, for example, my 16-45 Pentax lens (obviously, at the 16mm setting). The results will be different, but will I get closer to an edge to edge shot of, say, a dashboard from the back of the car seats. Or should I pack in the fisheye idea and wait until I see a price on the Tamron 11-18? Principle use is shooting car and light truck interiors. > OK. I'm still waffling, and won't have the money for any of it for a > few weeks, but... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Or should I pack in the fisheye idea and wait until I see a price on > the Tamron 11-18? The Tamron 11~18mm sells for CDN $780, in Ottawa, Canada. I expect Pentax AF mount versions in a few weeks I have the Nikon and Canon one now. > > OK. I'm still waffling, and won't have the money for any of it for a > > few weeks, but... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The Tamron 11~18mm sells for CDN $780, in Ottawa, Canada. I expect Pentax > AF mount versions in a few weeks I have the Nikon and Canon one now. I see Porter's has the Tamron 11-18 for $579, USD. No Pentax mount yet, though, which is probably just as well. I've got a small book advance coming that will loosen things up enough to cover that. >> > OK. I'm still waffling, and won't have the money for any of it for a >> > few weeks, but... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > though, which is probably just as well. I've got a small book advance > coming that will loosen things up enough to cover that. Pentax will start shipping their own DA 12~24mm f:4 ED in October 2005. > >> > OK. I'm still waffling, and won't have the money for any of it for a > >> > few weeks, but... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > Pentax will start shipping their own DA 12~24mm f:4 ED in October 2005. Any idea of price? I notice that Sigma often is as high as, or higher than, Pentax OEM lenses. >> Pentax will start shipping their own DA 12~24mm f:4 ED in October 2005. > >Any idea of price? I notice that Sigma often is as high as, or higher >than, Pentax OEM lenses. Can anyone comment on the older 8 mm Nikon fisheye lenses that you see sometimes on ebay? Kodak > Can anyone comment on the older 8 mm Nikon fisheye lenses that you see > sometimes on ebay? The 8mm f/8 fisheye required the mirror to be locked up in order to mount the lens; it cannot be used on any of the DSLRs. The 8mm f/2.8 is apparently an okay lens. Nikon actually makes a fisheye lens for the cropped-sensor DSLRs, though, so why bother?  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Principle use is shooting car and light truck interiors. If you are looking for a "realistic" showing, I'm not sure a fisheye is what you're looking for. On natural subjects they can work well but on man made subjects with lots of straight lines, they show typical fisheye distortion which probably isn't what you're wanting. SignatureStacey > If you are looking for a "realistic" showing, I'm not sure a fisheye is what > you're looking for. On natural subjects they can work well but on man made > subjects with lots of straight lines, they show typical fisheye distortion > which probably isn't what you're wanting. Well, when you're shooting a car interior you're going to have to choose between fisheye distortion and rectilinear super-wide corner distortion, since you can't get around having things close to the camera. So it's really down to which of the two you find more objectionable -- perhaps balanced by the fact that a fisheye will be cheaper than an ultra-wide rectilinear lens. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> If you are looking for a "realistic" showing, I'm not sure a fisheye is what >> you're looking for. On natural subjects they can work well but on man made [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >balanced by the fact that a fisheye will be cheaper than an ultra-wide >rectilinear lens. I agree about the rectilinear super-wide corner distortion. I use 12mm and 15mm ultra-wide angle lenses on 35mm and would not consider using them in a vehicle interior for precisely that reason. A good choice here would be the 15mm or 16mm fisheyes, designed to fill the frame on 35mm film. While there will still be fisheye distortion, it will be much less pronounced than the distortion produced by an 8mm fisheye, which won't even cover the full frame of a Pentax *ist D(S) - or that of any other APS-sized sensor. > Sigma & Peneng 8mm fisheye lenses have their obvious advantages on a > 1.5 multiple factor Pentax. An 8mm fisheye won't cover the DX format. However, you can add a 1.4x teleconverter to get an 11.2mm lens that will cover the format and provide a useful FOV increase over the more usual 15/16mm fisheyes. Brian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.