Fisheyes, fisheyes, rolly polly fisheyes

I have a manual Nikon camera and a lust for the mountains. After

thoroughly enjoying photography with my 24mm, I would like to

explore the creative effects of a fisheye lens. My preference is

manual, since they seem so much better constructed. If I wanted to

spend under $1000, what would you recommend? I've considered the

16mm 3.5 AI and the 16mm 2.8 AIS. What else would you recommend? I

call upon your wisdom.

Fisheyes are tricked up lenses who's effects you'll probably find quite tiring after the novelty wears offf. Because of this, I'd recommend one of the Russian fisheye lenses that sell for under $200 on ebay. These include the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 in AI mount if you want a full frame lens, or the Peleng 8mm f3.5 if you want a full 180 degree circular image. Both of these are surprisingly decent lenses for the price, and you won't feel like you wasted a small fortune if you get bored of the Fisheye effect.

I heartly second this advice.

...eat 'em up, yum!!! -- NOT

 

Like the others say, fisheye effects get old after a while. An ultra-wide rectilinear lens would be more fun, albeit challenging in composition. The Sigma 14mm/3.5 has gotten some good reviews.

While you don't mention the camera, I don't think you'll have any trouble with the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 (full frame). It's $200 or so at Kiev Camera (you'll have to google it to find the site, I forget the link).

 

Its a great lens for the money and handy when fisheye is needed. Fisheye lenses definitely aren't something you'll use every day, or every month and they can be quite cliche even if you're careful about how you use it. I'd say go with the Zenitar and if you feel you really need something better sell it and get the better lens you want.

I should add, I think fisheyes can be great for some really bizarre architectural perspectives.<br><br><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1030590" target="_blank">This photo</a> was taken with the Zenitar, as are a couple of admittedly bizarre variations of the same image in that folder.

I have to disagree with most of the previous posts. I own a manual focus fisheye, Sigma 2.8/15mm, which I bought new about six years ago (at about time they discontinued it). I payed about 400US$ and it is really good lens. I use it a lot, it is especially suitable for landscape photography. Suprisingly, I made a lot of commmercial photos with this lens, even portraits. It can be very effective and creative tool, you just have to get used to it and use it a lot.

On the other hand, I was very dissapointed with Sigma 3.5/14mm. I had problems with terrible ghosts all the time. New 2.8/14 is completely different and much better.

I use a Fujinon 16mm full-frame fisheye for landscapes occaisionally. With careful composition, keeping the the camera absolutely level and the horizon dead centre, it's possible to achieve "realistic" results that crop very well to panoramic format. Of course you can also take advantage of the distortion capabilities of a lens like this and point it any which way but level and get interesting pictures.

 

As others have noted, an 8mm fisheye (I have the Peleng) can be very difficult to use for anything other than the occaisional novelty shot, but if you've got the cash available it's excellent value for money.

Hmmm. I used to have the Sigma 14 f/3.5 too. Loved it. Great fun & took great pictures too. Quite sharp for the money. But Janez is right, it did have a terrible ghosting & flare problem. You really had to watch where the light was coming from. But that's a rectilinear lens and you were asking about fisheyes...

 

I've got a Zenitar 16 f/2.8. It's another great lens, and has much less problems with flare. And I never get tired of looking at more fisheye photos. Fisheyes are well worth getting, but unless you really want to commit yourself to them, get a cheap Russian lens first. If, after you've used it for a while, you find yourself wanting something better. Then drop some money on a better one.

16mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor, but use it judciously

I perhaps should have been more clear on this: Assuming that you DO really want a fisheye, the Russian 16mm f2.8 Zenitar is quite a nice little lens, and you should be able to pick it up in AI mount for under $150. The Nikon lenses that cost 5-10 times as much are only slightly better optically (although they ARE certainly better constructed). I would certainly NOT spend nearly $1000 on one of those unless I had a professional requirement for a fisheye.

Another vote for the Zenitar. I'm very pleased with mine. There is a dealer in Atlanta who imports them and sells them reasonably. I like that better than ordering from someone I don't know in the Ukraine (although that probably works out OK). It's a little hard to keep the lens cap in place. I keep a piece of black electrical tape over the cap, smoothed over the sides of the lens. When the lens is in use, the tape stores on the camera's bottom plate.

 

One of the other posters talked about keeping the lens level. Brian Bower has a landscape in his Leica R book that was done in this way. You can't tell it was done with a fisheye! The horizon will stay straight if the camera is level.

Art haykin (i think) had a great poem about fisheyes,really whish i had kept it.Maybe he will turn up...

<br>By the way-i agree with the others-The zenitar is 8/10ths of the nikkor optically(at least) but waaaaay cheaper.The thing about fisheyes is that,because of the strong distorsion effects,you don't notice optical imperfections anywhere near as much.I have used a cheap fisheye converter on a canon kit zoom with great results.

I bought a used AI-S 16/2.8. If you're patient, you can find one of these with perfect glass for similar money to the Zenitar. Don't hesitate to buy the Zenitar if you're interested in it (Russian and Ukrainian optics can be surprisingly good), but I figure that the resale value of the Nikkor made it a safer bet. I can easily get every penny I paid for the lens (from you, for instance :) ) ... but it's not for sale. I like it too much, even though it is a difficult lens to use.

The problems with the Zenitars (and other Russian lenses) is quality control. My lens is sharp, contrasty and has pretty good control over chromatic abberations. A friend of mine has the zenitar but his has a lot of chromatic abberation issues and isn't as sharp as mine. A bigger issue seems to be consistency in the coating of the optics.

 

I don't mean to discourage you from these lenses, they're quite good but some people have received bad samples.