If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
15mm & 28mm vs 17-40
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
15mm & 28mm vs 17-40
"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.....:^) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
15mm & 28mm vs 17-40
"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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
15mm & 28mm vs 17-40
"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...... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which 28mm non-Canon lens for dRebel | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 9 | December 4th 04 11:53 AM |
AIS MF Nikkors 28mm f2.0 vrs. 28mm f2.8 | Matt Clara | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | September 8th 04 09:03 PM |
FA: Canon 15mm FD manual focus fisheye lens in excellentcondition. Relisted, lower reserve! | Jon | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 25th 04 05:37 AM |
FA: Canon 15mm FD manual focus fisheye lens in excellent condition | Jon | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | May 15th 04 02:34 AM |
FA: Nikon mount, 28mm f/2.8 lens (manual focus) | Angelo P. | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 29th 03 02:46 PM |