Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Is this fish-eye worth it?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:22 pm    Post subject: Is this fish-eye worth it? Reply with quote

The shortest lens I currently have is a 24mm. If I wanted something much shorter is THIS worth buying do you think, or are there better alternatives for this (or less Smile) money?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:35 pm    Post subject: Zenitar Reply with quote

Both this and the other famous FSU fisheye, the Peleng 8mm, are well regarded and you won't go wrong with it, also the vendor you've found has been around for many years with a good record.

If you're shooting with a crop camera, you may want to investigate whether the 16mm Zenitar is sufficient for you, or whether you may prefer the 8mm Peleng. For myself, I found that I would rather have a 17mm rectilinear lens like a Tokina or Tamron; or alternatively, the Peleng 8mm fisheye. I'd suggest you check out images made with each with your particular camera crop to assess this. Fisheye is a different world than ultra-wide-angle.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Zenitar Reply with quote

robertro wrote:
Both this and the other famous FSU fisheye, the Peleng 8mm, are well regarded and you won't go wrong with it, also the vendor you've found has been around for many years with a good record.

If you're shooting with a crop camera, you may want to investigate whether the 16mm Zenitar is sufficient for you, or whether you may prefer the 8mm Peleng. For myself, I found that I would rather have a 17mm rectilinear lens like a Tokina or Tamron; or alternatively, the Peleng 8mm fisheye. I'd suggest you check out images made with each with your particular camera crop to assess this. Fisheye is a different world than ultra-wide-angle.


Thanks for you opinion robertro. I will be using a full frame 5D, so would 8mm work, or too extreme? Vignetting a big problem?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:12 pm    Post subject: Zenitar Reply with quote

Yes, on full frame, the Peleng will give you an almost circular fisheye; 180 degrees cropped a bit at top and bottom, so problably too wide angle. I believe that the Zenitar covers the 35mm frame very well from what I've seen on the web, though I have not played with that combination.

Some alternatives to consider: If you're shooting landscape or static subjects, you might want to consider stiching software that lets you combine multiple images to achieve high-resolution ultra-wide. If it's more action-oriented, a very low cost option is to use a high-grade wide adapter (the Olympus WCON-07x comes to mind); I've used this on a Vivitar 24/2 with good results, even wide open, but from my experimentation, it seems sensitive to lens-adapter combinations, so you can get superb results, or results with soft edges and CA, depending on the prime lens used.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have the Peleng (yet). I do have the Zenitar, and the Pentax DA10-17 fisheye zoom. I have put both on both 135/FF (Pentax ZX-M) and 135/HF | APS-C (Pentax K20D) cams. Here's what I find:

On 135/FF, the Zenitar is frame-filling fishy, like using the 10-17 @ 10mm on APS-C. On APS-C, the zenitar is mildly fishy, like using the 10-17 @ 16mm, except that the Zenitar is 1.3 stops faster there so I use it much more. When road-tripping, my most-used lenses are my DA18-250 and the Zenitar. It's quite a decent lens, highly recommended.

The 10-17 vignettes on 135/FF but that's more due to its minihood than the optics. Neither the Zenitar nor the Pentax are full-circle fisheyes. For that I use a cheezy Kenko 180 Degree adapter on an 18-55 or 35-70 @ 4omm. Not the greatest -- a Peleng is in my future!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many thanks for the info people.

I was worried that this sort of lens might be a "one shot wonder", which makes it quite an expensive experiment, but at least two people use it a lot.

It is also interesting that there is some support for using an ultra-wide adapter. I have a Canon one of these somewhere, so I just need to find a short focal lens to fit it to Smile Looks like it's worth investigating before taking the plunge with a full on fish-eye.

Thanks again.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have zenitar 16/2,8. Itsn't comparable with peleng 8mm. 2x focal length. Peleng always compared with Samyang 8mm/3.5 For FF cam Samyang is said to be having to much vignete. While peleng has better result, and wider. But for my Canon APS-C, I want to have Samyang someday
I have Tokina 17/3,5 too, it's great lens too. Sharp wide open. But if it's stepped down, the speed will drop too much.too slow.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martyn_bannister wrote:
I was worried that this sort of lens might be a "one shot wonder", which makes it quite an expensive experiment, but at least two people use it a lot.

I definitely find the Zenitar to be very useful on APS-C. My first K20D kit included the FA50/1.4 for speed, DA18-250 for walkaround, and DA10-17 for fishiness. But now I relegate the 10-17 to niche shooting, and use the Zenitar for more general work. Of course it excels in small spaces, and to separate a close subject from their background, and can be artfully used to emphasize and/or distort angles. But I really like it in portrait aspect outdoors, for huge DOF in vertical shots -- y'know, close colorful blooms in large landscapes under dramatic skies, that sort of stuff.

It's also handy on the street when I want to shoot folks without pointing a lens directly into their faces. But this sometimes dictates defishing in PP, thus the necessity to down-size the image to keep edge resolution good. If bent edges don't matter, then no problem! So it's not a one-trick pony; I just choose its tricks carefully.

Quote:
It is also interesting that there is some support for using an ultra-wide adapter. I have a Canon one of these somewhere, so I just need to find a short focal lens to fit it to Smile Looks like it's worth investigating before taking the plunge with a full on fish-eye.

The cheap way to see if you like fisheye: Use a 16-20-24mm lens to shoot and stitch together some full-circle panos. Then run them through a fishy filter in PP. The problem with many full-fish adapters is loss of IQ at the edges. That's my major quibble with my Kenko. If its edges were better, and it wasn't so slow, I might use it a lot. Your Canon might be better.

Some say cynically that the major application for a full-fish is to shoot examples of what a full-fish can do! Any full-fish IMHO is a niche tool. It's a fun niche.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:32 am    Post subject: wide adapters.... Reply with quote

If you are looking at the adapters:

Some high quality wide-angle units are described here:
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Lenses/WideAngle.html

For fisheye, I've experimented using many prime lenses on the Nikon FC-08 I mentioned, an Olympus FCON-02, a Raynox FE180, and the Spiratone 180. The Nikon and Raynox are excellent, the Olympus is OK and very lightweight, and the Spiratone is so-so. I've also used a no-name semi-fisheye, only good for special effects.


quote="martyn_bannister"]Many thanks for the info people.

I was worried that this sort of lens might be a "one shot wonder", which makes it quite an expensive experiment, but at least two people use it a lot.

It is also interesting that there is some support for using an ultra-wide adapter. I have a Canon one of these somewhere, so I just need to find a short focal lens to fit it to Smile Looks like it's worth investigating before taking the plunge with a full on fish-eye.

Thanks again.[/quote]


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice info robertro about the adapter. Maybe someday I'll find one.
Any body knows Mamiya 14/3,5 fish eye here? Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martyn - Do you want a fisheye or an ultra wide?

For the odd occasion when I want silly wide, I use my Vivitar 19mm. It's okay for the price and will give a distorted image when you're in close.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you can also consider spiratone/sigma/tokina 18mm 3.5/3.2 lens .. on you full frame 5D they will give really nice angle and they can also focus really close (around 0.2m) ..check this thread here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-18mm-3-2-surprise-t32581,highlight,spiratone.html

and
http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-ys-13-2-f18mm-t32822,highlight,spiratone.html


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:32 am    Post subject: Re: Zenitar Reply with quote

martyn_bannister wrote:


Thanks for you opinion robertro. I will be using a full frame 5D, so would 8mm work, or too extreme? Vignetting a big problem?


I use an 8mm Sigma on my 5D and there are some examples straight from the camera in here http://s303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/tikkathreebarrels/Sigma%208mm%20fisheye%20examples/
such as this one:



Whether you simply crop away the border to leave adistorted effect such as this



or whether you correct the distortion is up to you. Mostly I use mine to capture the distortion which does make it a bit of a one trick pony.

[img][/img]


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Samyang 8mm fisheye, and it's brilliant. If there's vignetting, I don't really notice it.

Much, much better than I had expected. I have one with a Nikon mount, along with a Nikon -> Micro 4/3 adapter, so I can use it on both.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Zenitar 16mm/2.8 fisheye and some other wide angle lenses - like the Samyang 14mm/2.8 and the Tokina 17mm/3.5. Use them most with EOS 5D.

I think my copy of the Tokina is not very sharp on the image borders - even stopped down. But I used it often - until I bought the Samyang 14 mm.
The Zenitar is not often the best choice - for my images.

Here are some pictures I made with the lenses:

Samyang 14 mm
http://4photos.de/galerie/Architektur/slides/Dockland-2.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Architektur/slides/Magellan-Terassen.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Frankreich-Auvergne-Bourges/slides/Fliesendes-Wasser.html
http://www.4photos.de/test/Samyang-14mm-2.8-en.html Testsite with full resolution images

Zenitar 16 mm
http://4photos.de/galerie/Architektur/slides/Speicherstadt-Hamburg-HDR-1.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Ruegen/slides/Huenengrab.html

Tokina 17 mm
http://4photos.de/galerie/Architektur/slides/Kehrwiederspitze-Hamburg.html I thinkt that was the Tokina
http://4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Albtrauf.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Irland/slides/_MG_1646-01.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Irland/slides/_MG_1311-01.html
http://4photos.de/galerie/Ruegen/slides/Ruegen_Kreidefelsen.html

I would not reccomend the Zenitar or other fisheye lenses for you, better an other super wide lens like the Samyang 14mm, or other probably a 17 or 18 mm lens. The fisheye distortion fits not for many pictures - my opinon.