15mm & 28mm vs 17-40

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!

In article K7Hjf.551$gm2.70@trndny03,
says...
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!



There is always the argument that a prime will give better results than a
zoom but it is really a matter of taste. The prime will most likely be
sharper in any given brand name but I have zooms that I love and carry
more often on trips. If you like the fisheye look and will use it only on
occasion go with the 15mm. If you need the range to experiment than maybe
the 17-40 is a better bet. I would check it out and see if the results
are sharp and to your liking at both ends. In other words is it good
enough at 17 to replace the 15mm? Most zooms suffer here.

"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 Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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.

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.

Thanks!


I use 17-40 on my 300D. I bought it only 2 months ago and didn't have a
chance to take a lot of pictures with it yet, but I really like it so far.
I use it mainly for landscape nature or urban. Since I bought it for
wide coverage and I don't like post processing, I wouldn't change it for
the fisheye.

"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.

The lens you should buy is of course the 17-40mm. It's a good 17mm,
20mm,24mm, 28mm, 34mm and 40mm lens, plus all the focal lengths in
between. Unlike a fisheye, it doesn't distort straight lines.

Just think of all the images you could make with that range of focal
lengths, then think how limited the fisheye would be.

Buy the 17-40mm. Sell the 18 if you have to. But don't spend a lot
of money on a fisheye, for you will have wasted your money.

Pentax users who disagree with my analysis will be pleased to hear
that Pentax has just announced a 10-17mm fisheye for Pentax digital
SLRs with APS-sized sensors. It was co-developed with Tokina:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05..._fishizoom.asp

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.

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

Great advice. Thanks!

"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.

The lens you should buy is of course the 17-40mm. It's a good 17mm,
20mm,24mm, 28mm, 34mm and 40mm lens, plus all the focal lengths in
between. Unlike a fisheye, it doesn't distort straight lines.

Just think of all the images you could make with that range of focal
lengths, then think how limited the fisheye would be.

Buy the 17-40mm. Sell the 18 if you have to. But don't spend a lot
of money on a fisheye, for you will have wasted your money.

Pentax users who disagree with my analysis will be pleased to hear
that Pentax has just announced a 10-17mm fisheye for Pentax digital
SLRs with APS-sized sensors. It was co-developed with Tokina:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05..._fishizoom.asp

Tony Polson wrote:

Sell the 18 if you have to


Oops - of course I meant the 28!

Mavis Beacon will be spinning in her grave!

Msut laenr ot tpye bteter ...

;-)

"Donald Specker" wrote:

Great advice. Thanks!


You're very welcome.