fisheyes

Hatchetman · 02-29-2012, 02:11 PM

Anyone here a big proponent? Fisheye photos are very rare here at RP, but I think they have their place. Any thoughts on buying one, using one, etc?

troy12n · 02-29-2012, 09:47 PM

Not really. More of a gimmick.

JRMDC · 02-29-2012, 10:56 PM

It's a matter of taste, as in many things photographic. If you do a search on "fisheye" on RP you turn up 20 shots. Some of those don't look "fishy", just ultra wide. Thomas Nanos, in particular, may be cropping or perspective adjusting to get rid of the fishy look.

Also, there is this one, nice take on Morant's

PhotoID: 312762
Photograph © Matthew Hicks

trainboysd40 · 03-01-2012, 01:56 AM

Thanks, Janusz

I borrowed the sigma 8mm fisheye for a few months, and while it was fun for a while, when faced with the idea of actually paying for it I decided it wasn't worth it. One thing you have to consider is that you can only really use it on shots where you actually have enough to fill it edge to edge. If you're really just curious, you can get an old Russian Peleng 8mm fairly cheaply and adapt it to the mount of your choice.

Hatchetman · 03-01-2012, 02:52 AM

20 shots out of 350,000. that's not too good of a %.

JRMDC · 03-01-2012, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

20 shots out of 350,000. that's not too good of a %.

That is the wrong percentage to think about! The one you want to know is the % of submitted fisheyes that are accepted!

Holloran Grade · 03-01-2012, 03:40 AM

Nope, not a look I am interested in producing.

Besides, you can get that look in the example by shooting into the reflective bubble on a truck mirror.

Ron Flanary · 03-01-2012, 03:53 AM

I never cared for it myself. As someone said, it's just an artsy kind of gimmick.

You could always use a fisheye and then apply a ton of "lens correction" with Photoshop to bring it back to reality.

Walter S · 03-01-2012, 04:20 AM

I recently bought the Canon 8-15 and I have been very happy with it. A fisheye may not be a lens you will use every day, but I do feel that it deserves a spot in most peoples kit and it adds some variety to your portfolio. I have not taken many railroad images with it, however a few examples are below.

A nice, cheap alternative is the Pro-optic 8mm. It sells for around $300. The lens is very, very soft at F3.5, but once you stop down a little it becomes quite sharp. It is 100% manual.

Holloran Grade · 03-01-2012, 04:23 AM

I am not a fan of the distortion that they produce.

I do like the train shot though.

The others make me dizzy.

troy12n · 03-01-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S

I recently bought the Canon 8-15 and I have been very happy with it. A fisheye may not be a lens you will use every day, but I do feel that it deserves a spot in most peoples kit and it adds some variety to your portfolio. I have not taken many railroad images with it, however a few examples are below.

Looks like someone has been to Florida recently...

Did you go on the Tavares, Eustis and Gulf "railfan excursion" a couple weeks ago or did you somehow talk them into letting you ride in the cab? I recognize the crew.

KevinM · 03-01-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S

I recently bought the Canon 8-15 and I have been very happy with it. A fisheye may not be a lens you will use every day, but I do feel that it deserves a spot in most peoples kit and it adds some variety to your portfolio. I have not taken many railroad images with it, however a few examples are below.

A nice, cheap alternative is the Pro-optic 8mm. It sells for around $300. The lens is very, very soft at F3.5, but once you stop down a little it becomes quite sharp. It is 100% manual.

Walter, I count myself as someone who has traditionally looked at fisheyes as "artsy" or "gimicky". The series you posted makes a strong case that some of us need to take a second look. Those are all really nice photos and definitely not in the "oddities" category. I especially like the shot of the Enola Gay from the walk bridge. Yeah, it's probably not a lens that most of us would reach for a lot, but it definitely has its place in the bag of any serious photographer.

Thanks for adjusting my attitude! I always enjoy looking at your stuff and have your site bookmarked.

JRMDC · 03-01-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM

Walter, I count myself as someone who has traditionally looked at fisheyes as "artsy" or "gimicky". The series you posted makes a strong case that some of us need to take a second look. Those are all really nice photos and definitely not in the "oddities" category. I especially like the shot of the Enola Gay from the walk bridge. Yeah, it's probably not a lens that most of us would reach for a lot, but it definitely has its place in the bag of any serious photographer.

I think the key in Walter's shots is that, while there is evident curvature, the curvature isn't the dominant aspect of the shots. Well done, especially the walkbridge shot. Heading out now, stop 1, purchase lens, stop 2, air and space museum ...

railfanzone · 03-01-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

It's a matter of taste, as in many things photographic. If you do a search on "fisheye" on RP you turn up 20 shots. Some of those don't look "fishy", just ultra wide. Thomas Nanos, in particular, may be cropping or perspective adjusting to get rid of the fishy look.

Only real cropping that is done is by the crop sensor on the body - only minimal cropping, if at all, is done in post. Using the 15mm Sigma on a 1.6x crop body does get rid of the bulk of the "fishiness" right off the bat. I'm not one to use lens or perspective corrections in PS as a general rule, either. If you look for the distortion, you'll find it.

magicman_841 · 03-01-2012, 04:21 PM

The Sigma 8-16 is definately on my wishlist, but I'm not sure I would use a real, fixed focal length fisheye.

JRMDC · 03-01-2012, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railfanzone

Only real cropping that is done is by the crop sensor on the body - only minimal cropping, if at all, is done in post. Using the 15mm Sigma on a 1.6x crop body does get rid of the bulk of the "fishiness" right off the bat. I'm not one to use lens or perspective corrections in PS as a general rule, either. If you look for the distortion, you'll find it.

Cool, thanks for the info. The 1.6x crop does get rid of the bulk, that makes sense.

railfanzone · 03-01-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Cool, thanks for the info. The 1.6x crop does get rid of the bulk, that makes sense.

Not a problem.

And as Walter mentioned above, it's a great thing to have in the bag. Do I use it every day? Hell no. But I'm glad I have it available - it's only a 15mm, but that extra 3mm over my everyday wide angle zoom (18-50mm) opens up a bunch of tight spots.

Mr. Pick · 03-01-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railfanzone

Not a problem.

And as Walter mentioned above, it's a great thing to have in the bag. Do I use it every day? Hell no. But I'm glad I have it available - it's only a 15mm, but that extra 3mm over my everyday wide angle zoom (18-50mm) opens up a bunch of tight spots.

Which is why I like my Canon 15-85 IS lens so much. Extremely versatile.

03-02-2012, 12:27 AM

Here's some from my Sigma 17-70, works great. All examples are at 17MM.

JRMDC · 03-02-2012, 01:27 AM

To be clear, Ian's images are taken with a very standard rectilinear 17mm (28mm equiv). A rectilinear 15mm will not show the curvature elements in the image that show up in Tom's work with a 15mm fisheye. And of course, if Tom had a FF body to go with that lens, he would get some really curvy stuff!

NathanAirChime · 03-02-2012, 02:34 AM

I dont even consider my Canon 10mm-22mm to be a fisheye lens... just wide angle... The above 17mm is not even close to what a true fisheye lens and are in the wrong topic area

crazytiger · 03-02-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NathanAirChime

I dont even consider my Canon 10mm-22mm to be a fisheye lens... just wide angle... The above 17mm is not even close to what a true fisheye lens and are in the wrong topic area

Yeah... Fisheye is like 8mm or 10mm on an FF sensor.

Hatchetman · 03-02-2012, 11:25 PM

I don't think fisheye is defined by the focal length but rather lens design.

JRMDC · 03-02-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

I don't think fisheye is defined by the focal length but rather lens design.

Correct, a "standard" lens is typically a "rectilinear" of some sort, whereas a fisheye is completely different, at the same focal length.

troy12n · 03-03-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Correct, a "standard" lens is typically a "rectilinear" of some sort, whereas a fisheye is completely different, at the same focal length.

^ THIS...

I was going to comment, but it was too harsh and I just didnt click post.

Just because a particular wide lens like a 10-22 or 17-40 may exhibit certain "fish like" features at the widest focal lengths, that does not make them a fisheye lens.