8mm fisheye on 4/3

I really like the shots this guy got from this cheap fisheye.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=11937

I have the 30mm medium format soviet lens and it is equally fun. Used
carefully in landscapes it really doesn't show the "fisheye" distortion and
has -no- light falloff which can be an issue with rectilinear ultrawides..

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
I really like the shots this guy got from this cheap fisheye.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=11937


Fun but I'm a little dizzy now.


I have the 30mm medium format soviet lens and it is equally fun. Used
carefully in landscapes it really doesn't show the "fisheye" distortion and
has -no- light falloff which can be an issue with rectilinear ultrawides..

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Very cool. I don't take back everything I said about Russian equipment
:-)
But I must say, it tempts me to get an M42 body of some sort just to
have a fulltime fisheye. It never occurred to me to buy a Praktica in
the 70s -- I can't believe I'd actually consider it *now* just so I can
use a cheap Russian lens :-)

"James Of Tucson" wrote:

Very cool. I don't take back everything I said about Russian equipment
:-)
But I must say, it tempts me to get an M42 body of some sort just to
have a fulltime fisheye. It never occurred to me to buy a Praktica in
the 70s -- I can't believe I'd actually consider it *now* just so I can
use a cheap Russian lens :-)


With an inexpensive adapter, you can use M42 lenses on cameras with
Pentax K or Canon EF lens mounts.

Some former Soviet lenses are also available in Nikon AI mount.

Please note that most of the "former Soviet" lenses are not produced
in Russia, coming instead from the former Soviet republics of Ukraine
and Belarus.

Stacey wrote:

I really like the shots this guy got from this cheap fisheye.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=11937

Cool. I'm not a fisheye fan, but this is one of those instances where
it really works.


I have the 30mm medium format soviet lens and it is equally fun. Used
carefully in landscapes it really doesn't show the "fisheye" distortion and
has -no- light falloff which can be an issue with rectilinear ultrawides..

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg

White skies really kill a photo, looks better cropped out. Here you
tried to reduce that and got the curved shore. I do like the clouds in
the water, however.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Tony Polson wrote:


Some former Soviet lenses are also available in Nikon AI mount.



This one is actually being made with an OM mount (preset) so the OM to 4/3's
adapter olympus gave me will work.

I ordered one of these lenses last night! :-)
--

Stacey

Alan Browne wrote:



http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg

White skies really kill a photo, looks better cropped out.


Well the sky WAS white. :-) I tried that crop and don't like it, YMMV. I
suppose you're entilted to think this kills any shot, I don't agree. Plus
it was sorta foggy that day which made the trees across the lake sorta
blurred.

Here you
tried to reduce that and got the curved shore.

Yep, it was a 6X6 square neg so had LOTS of white sky to crop out..


--

Stacey

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:06:36 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:



http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg

White skies really kill a photo, looks better cropped out.


Well the sky WAS white. :-) I tried that crop and don't like it, YMMV. I
suppose you're entilted to think this kills any shot, I don't agree. Plus
it was sorta foggy that day which made the trees across the lake sorta
blurred.

Here you
tried to reduce that and got the curved shore.

Yep, it was a 6X6 square neg so had LOTS of white sky to crop out..

It's not that bad at all. The sky has detail in it, which is far
better than a complete burn out. It also sets to tone/mood of the
day the shot was taken. The woods are dark, the water is mostly dark,
the sky was primarily overcast. I know exactly what kind of day it
was. I'd wager the humidity was high owing to the amount of
extinction I see in the secondary treeline.
-Rich

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:



http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...9/duck3web.jpg

White skies really kill a photo, looks better cropped out.


Well the sky WAS white. :-) I tried that crop and don't like it, YMMV. I
suppose you're entilted to think this kills any shot, I don't agree. Plus
it was sorta foggy that day which made the trees across the lake sorta
blurred.

Here you
tried to reduce that and got the curved shore.

Yep, it was a 6X6 square neg so had LOTS of white sky to crop out..


--

Stacey

I think it's fine. Did you try burning in the sky for a slightly more
dramatic effect?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:



I think it's fine. Did you try burning in the sky for a slightly more
dramatic effect?


I might give that a shot. This was one of the first scans I did with my
LS8000 scanner so still learning.. Might need to override the auto exposure
and play with is some?

--

Stacey