Who says that gearheads can not be creative photographers as well ?
Many excellent, spirited images here that break the cliche about fisheye application.
As far as the lens goes, it is perhaps a bit of a sleeper because of its age and such. In reality, the lens is so fine that no Canon photographer should be without it.
wing tong wrote:
...on the contrary, I was looking for an excuse to need more gear, and I think I've found it!
For me it's really the only lens that I didn't have, this thread amped it up for me. But I really just wanted to rent one to use for when I go to the Sunflowers fields Sunday AM. The owner told me he had a 8mm that I could rent, it was in his used case. I shot it on my 5D, didn't like the image style.
Edited by monochrome on Jul 26, 2008 at 08:10 PM GMT
Once again, great shots guys. I am now eyeing the Tokina fisheye 10-17 f/3.5-4.5. BUT, I am also now thinking I need an UW in my lens lineup (for 1.6 crop) so am also eyeing the Tokina AT-X 116 (11-16mm f/2.8) but would likely be able to get only one of the two. Reason would say the UW 11-16 would see more use and the f/2.8 is very appealing versus the fisheye 10-17's f/3.5-4.5. The question is, as there are defishing software out there, is there a "fishing" software to effectively turn photos from a rectilinear UW (ie. Tokina 11-17) into a fisheye photo?
While it would be pretty easy to write a fishing plug-in, you would not get the wide-ness: a fish has 180 degrees diagonal viewing angle, and no rectilinear lens can get even close to that.
As Stan said, you will lose some of the wideness of the image, which is one of the main appeals of shooting with a fisheye. (Look at the head of the girl in the background to see.)
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Photoshop's distort filter will allow you to "fish" an image.
Just for fun...
<photos removed>
As Stan said, you will lose some of the wideness of the image, which is one of the main appeals of shooting with a fisheye. (Look at the head of the girl in the background to see.)
(lol) OK, those test shots definitely convinced me I need 2 different lenses. And as appealing as posts on this thread has been, I will likely have to go conservative and get an UW before the fisheye...I started this thread looking for an excuse to buy more gear - as they say, be careful what you wish for!
Ransome wrote:
+1 OP Thanks for starting this. I now have a better understanding of this area of photography and want one for my Turkey trip next year.
I was in Turkey last year and didn't have anything wider than 17mm for my 40D. Getting the 10-22 was at the top of my list of lenses to get by the time I got back. Some of those mosques and the Aya Sofya just cried out for an ultrawide lens. (I know the 10-22 isn't a fisheye, but it's as close as I can get with a crop.)
DocendoDiscimu's images are great and show exactly what can be done in that kind of situation.
I'd linked to some of my shots earlier in this thread, but this thread is way too much fun to not jump in and post some images right into it. So here we go!
All images shot with the awesomeness that is the Tokina 10-17 fisheye.
That was taken at our vacation a few years ago, and I can tell you that for a situation like this, you don't aim and shoot, but to shoot and run. It's basically inches away, and the property of fisheye made it appear much more impressive than it really was.
Jayem1 wrote:
That was taken at our vacation a few years ago, and I can tell you that for a situation like this, you don't aim and shoot, but to shoot and run. It's basically inches away, and the property of fisheye made it appear much more impressive than it really was.
I am inspired...