Upload & Sell: Off
Dustin, thank you.
Regarding the fisheye vs "conventional" UWA-lens - sometimes an image will look more natural when shot with a fisheye, in many cases a rectilinear lens is the one to grab.
The mighty and as a zoom unrivaled 14-24/2.8 was my go-to-lens for the last 4 years, but lately I've felt I would shoot every picture the same way when using the 14-24.
Time to re-discover the joys of using a quality fisheye-lens or to play more with stitched panos.
The 20/3.5 or 24/2.8 should make a nice companion to your 14mm. Both lenses are fairly compact and will take...Show more →
I appreciate this observation Georg. Even with the best lenses we can at times get into a rut. That was my experience with the wonderful kit of L lenses I owned when shooting Canon. I started with rather pedestrian lenses and noted the improvement as I invested in better glass. That was certainly rewarding and I was generally pleased with what all of those lenses produced. But when I stumbled on the Nikon MF lenses after buying a D700, I experienced something quite different and extremely satisfying. Exploring with lenses that have a bit of character adds zest to life. I appreciate, of course, that for a pro, you need the money shot in order to get paid. If the latest and greatest gets you there will a minimum of hassle, that is not a bad thing. But your presence on this thread tells me that you're having fun with these wonderful older lenses. That we can buy then without breaking the bank makes such play more available to more photographers. All good, in my opinion.
And I'm loving the work you're doing with the 16 f/3.5. Shooting with a fisheye really demands thoughtful consideration of one's subject. As you note, it is not suited for every occasion, but where it works, it does quite delicious things. Your work with the lens demonstrated that wonderfully. For Ray on a DX camera, it can make a wonderful wide, but on FX it becomes very evocative. Great fun!