wing tong wrote:
(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!
OK, after looking at everyone's fisheyes again and again and again, conservatism just went out the door! Just placed my order for the Tokina 10-17 fisheye...UW will have to wait.
wing tong wrote:
OK, after looking at everyone's fisheyes again and again and again, conservatism just went out the door! Just placed my order for the Tokina 10-17 fisheye...UW will have to wait.
It's a great lens, and at 17mm, it's practically a UWA anyway (same width as 12mm rect.)
I'm heading to Bryce and Zion national parks in September. I have an UWA, but I'm been thinking about getting a fisheye. Do you think a fisheye would be useful for this type of landscape photography?
michael49 wrote:
I'm heading to Bryce and Zion national parks in September. I have an UWA, but I'm been thinking about getting a fisheye. Do you think a fisheye would be useful for this type of landscape photography?
I really stick with my opinion that a fish is a very specialized tool, and when used too much it looks about as appealing as a person photographed with a 14mm (FF) lens from 2" away. It's funny once or twice, but gets old. To me, a fisheye requires a special kind of subject matter to work well, and of course good execution as well. I would personally not like to look thru a bunch of fish photos from Zion (etc) - YMMV.
Some really great pictures on this thread. I am inspired to go out and get a fisheye. Now, I just have to decide which one to get. I shoot Canon, but I know that canon's fisheye is expensive. What would you all suggest if I wern't going to get the Canon Version?
stanj wrote:
I really stick with my opinion that a fish is a very specialized tool, and when used too much it looks about as appealing as a person photographed with a 14mm (FF) lens from 2" away. It's funny once or twice, but gets old. To me, a fisheye requires a special kind of subject matter to work well, and of course good execution as well. I would personally not like to look thru a bunch of fish photos from Zion (etc) - YMMV.
That's why the fisheye zooms look so appealing to me. If I'm not mistaking, and according to Jman13 (in regards to the Tokina 10-17):
"It's a great lens, and at 17mm, it's practically a UWA anyway (same width as 12mm rect.)"
I agree by seeing these fisheye posts that over-fishing especially where linear objects are contorted in an unnatural fashion can be disorienting and not so appealing after awhile. For my taste, most of the fisheyes I like on this thread are ones that don't overfish it. With the zoom, I hope to get more control over the amount of fishing. Jman13 and Spyro's samples really sold me.
wing tong wrote:
That's why the fisheye zooms look so appealing to me. If I'm not mistaking, and according to Jman13 (in regards to the Tokina 10-17):
"It's a great lens, and at 17mm, it's practically a UWA anyway (same width as 12mm rect.)"
I agree by seeing these fisheye posts that over-fishing especially where linear objects are contorted in an unnatural fashion can be disorienting and not so appealing after awhile. For my taste, most of the fisheyes I like on this thread are ones that don't overfish it. With the zoom, I hope to get more control over the amount of fishing. Jman13 and Spyro's samples really sold me.
