| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
diegoc2000
Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Location: Mexico USA Border
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:07 am Post subject: Soligor fisheye adapter 0.15x |
 |
|
diegoc2000 wrote:
I have found many times on ebay the Soligor fisheye adapter. Some going for insanely high prices and other ones more reasonable priced, but how good (or bad) those are?
Does anyone have experience with these ones? It seems an adapter that you set at the end of either 49mm or 52 mm filter thread
Are there any other of fisheye adapters worth the time and money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1389
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: Re: Soligor fisheye adapter 0.15x |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| diegoc2000 wrote: |
I have found many times on ebay the Soligor fisheye adapter. Some going for insanely high prices and other ones more reasonable priced, but how good (or bad) those are?
Does anyone have experience with these ones? It seems an adapter that you set at the end of either 49mm or 52 mm filter thread
Are there any other of fisheye adapters worth the time and money? |
Worth paying about $30-45 to play with and re-sell for about the same. Lots (I mean, LOTS!) of CA, nothing left of sharpness in the corners. Center can be acceptable for Web pics though. Definitely does not produce printable quality images.
Better alternatives are Zenitar 16/2.8 and... that's about it. For under $200, I don't know of any other fisheye with good IQ.
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Deep
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 316
Location: Upstate New York
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Deep wrote:
I believe this is the same as the Kenko I have. Does it look like this?
If so, this is what you can expect (This shot was with a 55mm primary lens on a 1.6x DSLR):
Note pretty severe fringing on the right, even at this size.
I definitely would not pay any more than $30-45 like aoleg said. I happened upon mine for $5. A quick search on eBay brings up one of these listed BIN at $200. Ridiculous.
_________________
Rocket Launch Photography
Olympus: 24/2.8 MC, 28/3.5, 28/2.8 MC, 35/2.8, 50/3.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 MC, 35-70/3.6, 75-150/4
Nikon: C 24/2.8, AI-S 28/2.8, K 35/2.8, F 55/3.5, F 105/2.5, F 135/2.8, F 200/4, No. 5T
Pentax: 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 50/1.4 (v1), 50/1.4 (v2), M 50/1.4, SMC 55/1.8, 105/2.8, SMC 135/3.5, 150/4
Tamron: SP 17/3.5 151B, 135/2.8 T-135, SP 300/2.8 60B, SP 35-80/2.8-3.8 01A, 80-210/3.8-4 103A, SP 1.4x TC 140F, SP 2x TC 01F
Vivitar: 24/2 (Kino), 28/2 (Kino), 50/1.4 (Cosina), S1 90/2.5 (Tokina), S1 28-80/2.8-3.5 (Kino), 70-150/3.8 (Kino), S1 70-210/3.5 (Kino), 2x Macro TC
Etc: Yashica 3.5cm/2.8, Fujinon 50/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.4, Tomioka Yashinon 55/1.2, Mamiya/Sekor 55/1.7, Sigma 90/2.8
That's a lot of 50s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Soligor fisheye adapter 0.15x |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| aoleg wrote: |
| diegoc2000 wrote: |
I have found many times on ebay the Soligor fisheye adapter. Some going for insanely high prices and other ones more reasonable priced, but how good (or bad) those are?
Does anyone have experience with these ones? It seems an adapter that you set at the end of either 49mm or 52 mm filter thread
Are there any other of fisheye adapters worth the time and money? |
Worth paying about $30-45 to play with and re-sell for about the same. Lots (I mean, LOTS!) of CA, nothing left of sharpness in the corners. Center can be acceptable for Web pics though. Definitely does not produce printable quality images.
Better alternatives are Zenitar 16/2.8 and... that's about it. For under $200, I don't know of any other fisheye with good IQ. |
While I agree that there is lots (yes, LOTS!) of CA, shooting in raw helps a lot - the CA can mostly be fixed.
Center sharpness in my copy is not only acceptable, but very good, though sharpness goes down lots when approaching the corners... er....edges of the circle. Still, images are printable (though, I would't try A4 size), but it is more a lens for web images.
Also a lot depends on the lens one attaches the adapter into - one really should use primes that are rock solid wide open.
I think it is a nice toy if one is just interested in trying out different fisheye effects. It is not suitable for a professional use, that is for sure, but there is nothing wrong with it as long as one doesn't expect it to be more than the kludge it is. Easily worth the 30-40 euros it cost, I think. I think I payed 50, which is a bit much, but it was a cheap way to learn which kind of fish lens, if any, I might like, and as I will take at most a couple of 180-degree images and zero other kind images a year, none of which will be printed, I'm perfectly happy with the adapter myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| Mike Deep wrote: |
Note pretty severe fringing on the right, even at this size.
|
I thought that the picture is very nice - honestly, who cares about a little fringing near the edge in an image like this? I didn't pay any attention as the fantastic bolt of energy captured my mind. As long as one does not aim to publish the images, or does not aim for pro quality, this adapter is perfectly fine tool - after all, without it, you would not have been able to capture this great image!
Also, since this is lateral CA, it can be mostly eliminated in post processing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 683
Expire: 2012-12-03
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
greg wrote:
I started my path to the Peleng 8mm with that adapter. The results were well worth the money and I still use it occasionally as the Peleng looses the circle look on my 1.6x crop cameras. As was said, the circular images are neat! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 16544
Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Teh first fisheye I ever bought many, Many, MANY years ago - and the leasdt I would recommend to anyone. Not even good as a paperweight (the Zeiss S-Planar 1.6/50mm Microlitho lens is much better for that purpose...LOL)
_________________
Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| kds315* wrote: |
| Teh first fisheye I ever bought many, Many, MANY years ago - and the leasdt I would recommend to anyone. Not even good as a paperweight (the Zeiss S-Planar 1.6/50mm Microlitho lens is much better for that purpose...LOL) |
If this fisheye lens was good enough for Stanley Kubrick, it is good enough for me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Deep
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 316
Location: Upstate New York
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Deep wrote:
Kubrick didn't shoot with this lens, just at it.
_________________
Rocket Launch Photography
Olympus: 24/2.8 MC, 28/3.5, 28/2.8 MC, 35/2.8, 50/3.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 MC, 35-70/3.6, 75-150/4
Nikon: C 24/2.8, AI-S 28/2.8, K 35/2.8, F 55/3.5, F 105/2.5, F 135/2.8, F 200/4, No. 5T
Pentax: 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 50/1.4 (v1), 50/1.4 (v2), M 50/1.4, SMC 55/1.8, 105/2.8, SMC 135/3.5, 150/4
Tamron: SP 17/3.5 151B, 135/2.8 T-135, SP 300/2.8 60B, SP 35-80/2.8-3.8 01A, 80-210/3.8-4 103A, SP 1.4x TC 140F, SP 2x TC 01F
Vivitar: 24/2 (Kino), 28/2 (Kino), 50/1.4 (Cosina), S1 90/2.5 (Tokina), S1 28-80/2.8-3.5 (Kino), 70-150/3.8 (Kino), S1 70-210/3.5 (Kino), 2x Macro TC
Etc: Yashica 3.5cm/2.8, Fujinon 50/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.4, Tomioka Yashinon 55/1.2, Mamiya/Sekor 55/1.7, Sigma 90/2.8
That's a lot of 50s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| Mike Deep wrote: |
| Kubrick didn't shoot with this lens, just at it. |
I know |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diegoc2000
Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Location: Mexico USA Border
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:34 am Post subject: Thanks Everyone |
|
|
diegoc2000 wrote:
Thank You everyone for your answers, then the Peleng is too expensive, how that one compares against Sigma, Pentax or Tokina? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
