15mm & 28mm vs 17-40

In article aEYjf.2697$4v.784@fed1read03, says...
wrote in message
.net...
In article O7Qjf.2653$4v.924@fed1read03, says...
"Donald Specker" wrote in message
news:K7Hjf.551$gm2.70@trndny03...
Currently I'm using a 70-200 2.8 for short to medium telephoto shots
and a
28 2.8 for medium wide shots.

I need more wide angle coverage and am leaning toward using a 15mm
fisheye, or else getting a 17-40 and selling the 28.

Thoughts? I've never owned a fisheye, but I do like some shots taken
with
them.

Thanks!

Depends on what you're using it on, and why. If you are using it on a
1.6x
crop camera, like the 20D, and expect typical fisheye distortion, you may
be
disappointed. The distortion at the center of the lens is minimal. You
can
accomplish more in Photoshop, for instance.
If you are using it on a 35mm frame, either digital or film, then you get
the full effect of the distortion, and it can be fun! But, if you are
getting it just for the width, you are going to have to do some work to
de-distort in Photoshop.
(I've used a Sigma 15mm fisheye on film, 20D and 5D.)

Skip, you should write a damn book. You never miss.

I miss more than I should, considering how long I've been at this. Roger
Clark is the resident guru around these photo ngs, and I've learned a lot
from him...
There used to be more, but flamers chased them away.


It has a lot to do with how one puts down the word, so to speak, and I
find your descriptions easy to read and informative.

wrote in message
k.net...
In article aEYjf.2697$4v.784@fed1read03, says...
wrote in message
.net...
In article O7Qjf.2653$4v.924@fed1read03,
says...
"Donald Specker" wrote in message
news:K7Hjf.551$gm2.70@trndny03...
Currently I'm using a 70-200 2.8 for short to medium telephoto shots
and a
28 2.8 for medium wide shots.

I need more wide angle coverage and am leaning toward using a 15mm
fisheye, or else getting a 17-40 and selling the 28.

Thoughts? I've never owned a fisheye, but I do like some shots
taken
with
them.

Thanks!

Depends on what you're using it on, and why. If you are using it on a
1.6x
crop camera, like the 20D, and expect typical fisheye distortion, you
may
be
disappointed. The distortion at the center of the lens is minimal.
You
can
accomplish more in Photoshop, for instance.
If you are using it on a 35mm frame, either digital or film, then you
get
the full effect of the distortion, and it can be fun! But, if you are
getting it just for the width, you are going to have to do some work
to
de-distort in Photoshop.
(I've used a Sigma 15mm fisheye on film, 20D and 5D.)

Skip, you should write a damn book. You never miss.

I miss more than I should, considering how long I've been at this. Roger
Clark is the resident guru around these photo ngs, and I've learned a lot
from him...
There used to be more, but flamers chased them away.


It has a lot to do with how one puts down the word, so to speak, and I
find your descriptions easy to read and informative.

Well, thank you!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Donald Specker" wrote:

Currently I'm using a 70-200 2.8 for short to medium telephoto shots and a
28 2.8 for medium wide shots.

I need more wide angle coverage and am leaning toward using a 15mm
fisheye,
or else getting a 17-40 and selling the 28.

Thoughts? I've never owned a fisheye, but I do like some shots taken with
them.

If you want to try a fisheye, do it cheaply. Get one of those 0.42X
fisheye converters that screws into the filter ring of your 28mm, keep
the 28mm well stopped down (f/11 or smaller) and enjoy the results!

But you will quickly get bored. And that's why you shouldn't spend
much money on a fisheye. They are of very little practical use, hence
my suggestion to buy only a very cheap one.

This is exactly what I did......I bought the Kepco WA converter, and took a
couple of rolls with it. I was bored by the time I got to the last slide,
and I haven't used it since. But, since it only cost me about $120, I figure
that it saved me a lot of money in the long run.....They do make an $80
model, and I would have been better off had I bought that one.....:^)

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:fb2kf.2739$4v.88@fed1read03...
wrote in message
k.net...
In article aEYjf.2697$4v.784@fed1read03, says...
wrote in message
.net...
In article O7Qjf.2653$4v.924@fed1read03,
says...
"Donald Specker" wrote in message
news:K7Hjf.551$gm2.70@trndny03...
Currently I'm using a 70-200 2.8 for short to medium telephoto
shots
and a
28 2.8 for medium wide shots.

I need more wide angle coverage and am leaning toward using a 15mm
fisheye, or else getting a 17-40 and selling the 28.

Thoughts? I've never owned a fisheye, but I do like some shots
taken
with
them.

The are good at taking close-up pictures of chandeliers and carousels at
night......But how many of those can you find?

"That_Rich" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:34:40 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Skip M" wrote in message
news:fb2kf.2739$4v.88@fed1read03...
wrote in message
k.net...
In article aEYjf.2697$4v.784@fed1read03,
says...
wrote in message
.net...
In article O7Qjf.2653$4v.924@fed1read03,
says...
"Donald Specker" wrote in message
news:K7Hjf.551$gm2.70@trndny03...
Currently I'm using a 70-200 2.8 for short to medium telephoto
shots
and a
28 2.8 for medium wide shots.

I need more wide angle coverage and am leaning toward using a
15mm
fisheye, or else getting a 17-40 and selling the 28.

Thoughts? I've never owned a fisheye, but I do like some shots
taken
with
them.

The are good at taking close-up pictures of chandeliers and carousels at
night......But how many of those can you find?


Our very own Lewis Lang has some great stuff composed through
fisheye... not a chandelier in the bunch.

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

RP©

Yes. - Lewis' stuff is great. - But it just isn't my style. I am a realist,
and the fisheye effect doesn't improve anything I take. But Christmas is
coming up, and I might try to get a few shots of reflections in tree
ornaments, which are much the same thing as fish eye lenses......