fisheye
- Thread starter EiRiK
- Start date
- Status
Terence said:
thanks for the feedback terence...
i dunno much about fisheyes, but when u said, "not bad for its price($600)", are u saying that other fisheyes out there are alot more expensive?
EiRiK said:
ya .... considering whether to get the fisheye or 17-40 f/4L. :think:
May need some advice from u and all the pro out there.
I'm think to get the 1st set or the 2nd set....pls advise
1st Set
- 10D + Grip
- 15mm f/2.8L Fisheye
- 24-70mm f/2.8L
- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
2nd Set
- 10D + Grip
- 17-40mm f/4L
- 50mm f/1.4
- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Of Cos I will not be getting the whole set at one shot :sweat: :sweat: else pocket burn big hole sia. Most probably be getting the 10D+grip and one of the lens first, then slowly build up the collection.
I'm into Portraits, Wedding and some landscape.
Regards
Wong Weiliang
The 17-40 would definitely be more useful than the fisheye. More versatile, and usable in a much wider range of situations. i think the 2nd set more useful.
BTW the fisheye is not an L lens.
BTW the fisheye is not an L lens.
ST1100 said:
:think: :think: hmmm....quite true ,but i was thinking the 17-40 and the 24-70 overlaps too much and i would most probably use the 24-70 as my main lens and the 17-40 as landscape.
So , if i will to get the 15mm f/2.8 instead of the 17-40mm f/4 for landscape,do u think it is advisable??
Any comments from anyone is welcome. Thanks :angel:
ReSpawN said:
The FE is more of a specialty lens as it isn't rectilinear and hence introduce a significant amount of intended barrel distortions
For using that as a landscape lens, you'll probably need to defish a lot using software and plug-in but it's a lot of work & you lose some resolution as well. It works well for some people - but I think a Sigma 12-24 would be a better landscape lens if you need it to be wider and no overlap in your lineup
goering said:
I have both the 15mm and 17-35 f/2.8 and for wide angle landscape the 15mm on EOS 10D is a super combination - with no need to de-fish at least 95% of my shots. I've had both the Canon and Sigma and they are very similar in quality.
Some examples of Sigma shots can be found at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30624774
http://www.pbase.com/image/30624770
and a 15mm Canon example is at:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24292747
In fact I am packing my 15mm on trips much more often than my 17-35.
Rgds,
Dave
Hi,
I'm using the Sigma 15mm fisheye. It's an interesting lens that can be used to produce pretty interesting shots. I believe it will be a lens that would not be used often but it will give good curvy 180 deg shots.
Go get one, you will not regret it. I believe it has a good 2nd hand value should you want to sell it.
I'm using the Sigma 15mm fisheye. It's an interesting lens that can be used to produce pretty interesting shots. I believe it will be a lens that would not be used often but it will give good curvy 180 deg shots.
Go get one, you will not regret it. I believe it has a good 2nd hand value should you want to sell it.
FWIW, i enjoyed using my fisheye on my 10D. It gave a 'super-wide' perspective, with curved lines at the side. It's *excellent* for people photography, bcoz unlike rectilinear ultrawides, they don't distort people's faces as violently.
The not-completely-fisheye effect can be a welcome relief too. Using a fisheye on fullframe can be rather difficult. It's almost impossible to exclude elements you don't want in the frame, like your own feet. I've gotten bits on my thumb in the picture too, without realizing it.
The not-completely-fisheye effect can be a welcome relief too. Using a fisheye on fullframe can be rather difficult. It's almost impossible to exclude elements you don't want in the frame, like your own feet. I've gotten bits on my thumb in the picture too, without realizing it.
- Status
Similar threads
