Recommendations: fisheye lens wanted!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dallas, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. Dallas

    Dallas Guest

    I have been wanting one for a while now, but being a lens that will be
    seldom used, I was wondering what I should be looking for. I'd like to
    keep the mount Canon EF, but I would definitely look at something for my
    Canon A1's and Nikon F2 (when I finally bloody get it). Brand can be 3rd
    party.

    I saw a Sigma 14mm today that seems to be a fairly good price, but it's a
    Sigma, and I took a blood oath never to part with money for one, so I'm
    kinda stuck.
     
    Dallas, Jan 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dallas

    Nikkorguy Guest

    I saw a Sigma 14mm today that seems to be a fairly good price, but it's a

    The Sigma 14mm is a rectilinear design, not a fishey. The older f/3.5 model is
    pretty soft in the corners, the newer f/2.8 model is much better optically, and
    at least appears to be better built. The Sigma 15mm is a full frame fisheye,
    and optically it is fine.

    Frank
     
    Nikkorguy, Jan 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dallas

    Matt Clara Guest


    David Reuther rates the 3.5 much more highly, optically speaking, than the
    newer 2.8.
    http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 31, 2004
    #3
  4. Dallas

    Dallas Guest

    Nikkorguy said:
    Thanks Frank.

    You've piqued my curiousity on that 14mm so I think I will have a closer
    look at it. I am of course, very concerned about the brand name.
     
    Dallas, Jan 31, 2004
    #4
  5. I have the f/3.5 and find it very good, considering the extreme focal
    length. It's a bit low-res in the corners on film, but for the sort of
    pictures one would use it for this is not a major issue - the extremes
    of the frame suffer a lot of the area distortion inevitable in a
    rectilinear 14mm (i.e. it's an inherent part of the design, not an
    aberration) and are really only there for "effect". On a 1.6 factor DSLR
    it would probably be excellent (ironically, I have had a 10D for several
    months and never got round to trying this lens on it!).

    Of course, I would prefer to have the Canon 14mm, but at (IIRC) £2,000
    it's a bit hard to justify. It is significant that the 14mm is the only
    Sigma lens I still use.

    Never tried the f/2.8 version.
     
    David Littlewood, Jan 31, 2004
    #5
  6. Dallas

    Skip M Guest

    Dallas, I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye (the 14mm is not a fisheye) and,
    considering the idea that it isn't one of the lenses that gets used the
    most, I couldn't justify the additional cost of the Canon. The lens works
    well, and seems acceptably sharp. Of course, distortion is part of the
    point to such a lens. It also seems well built, but who's to say about the
    internals.
    Here's the one image I have on the web taken with that lens:
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/onefishtwofish.html
    Careful, it's sort of a nude...
     
    Skip M, Jan 31, 2004
    #6
  7. Dallas

    Dallas Guest

    Skip M said:
    Thanks Skip. Nice shot.

    I think I am actually going to go for the 14mm non-fisheye Sigma. The
    reason is purely because I want wider than the 32mm I am getting on my D60
    when using my Canon 20mm.

    I'm just hoping it works on both my Canon bodies.
     
    Dallas, Feb 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Dallas

    Nikkorguy Guest

    David Reuther rates the 3.5 much more highly, optically speaking, than the

    hmmm...interesting. Maybe I tried a bad sample of the 3.5. Although I use it on
    a digital body for the most part, so softness in the corners isn't such a huge
    issue.

    Frank
     
    Nikkorguy, Feb 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Dallas

    Skip M Guest

    It should work, my 15mm, bought for my 1n, works on my wife's cousin's
    (follow that?) 10D. Whether it will work on subsequent bodies remains to be
    seen...
     
    Skip M, Feb 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Dallas

    jones Guest

    You may want to take a look at the Peleng 8mm fisheye and the 16 mm
    Zenitar. Both are made in ex USSR factories IIRC. Either can be had
    for under $200 US.
    Neither is noted for optical sharpness, but you may get lucky and get
    a good one. Depends on what you need one for, or if you just want to
    play around with one.
    Someone on this NG may even have one, or had experience with one. I've
    only read about them because I am interested in the Peleng for my
    D100, which would be rendered into a 12mm and covers most of the
    sensor.
    A search on ebay will usually give you a couple of hits.
     
    jones, Feb 2, 2004
    #10
  11. I never rated the Sigma FF fisheyes or 14s - just the 8mm fisheye, which
    was excellent. In the Nikkor line, the old 16mm f3.5 FF fisheye is outstanding
    (good to the corners wide open, even in illumination, contrasty, and very
    low in flare), and I prefer it to the f2.8 16mm Nikkor versions (you may have
    been thinking of these...;-).
     
    David Ruether, Feb 4, 2004
    #11
  12. I never rated the Sigma FF fisheyes or 14s - just the 8mm fisheye, which
    was excellent. In the Nikkor line, the old 16mm f3.5 FF fisheye is outstanding
    (good to the corners wide open, even in illumination, contrasty, and very
    low in flare), and I prefer it to the f2.8 16mm Nikkor versions (you may have
    been thinking of these...;-).
     
    David Ruether, Feb 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Dallas

    EDGY01 Guest

    Since you're posting here for input on F/E lenses I would assume that you have
    some budget considerations.

    Are you interested in a full-frame f/e or a circular image?

    Everyone raves about the 16mm Nikkor f/e and it is available for about $500 US.
    The Russians make several models of f/e lens and their price is much more
    reasonable for the occasional user. I have several fisheye lenses (all
    Nikkors) and never use them enough to justify my investment really, but I know
    that I'll always get my money back later. With the third party lenses you can
    figure that you will not get as much back, but then you're not out as much in
    the first place.

    Dan
     
    EDGY01, Feb 5, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.