Help for an amateur.... wide-angle or fisheye or converter?

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to read this post.

Recently I visited the American Falls (Niagara Falls) and was using

my Nikon N60 with the standard 28-80 lens(set at 28) to get as wide

an angle as possible without actually falling off the cliff!

Since then, I have become very intrigued by landscape/panoramic photo

opportunities and acutely aware of the limitations of the 28-80 in

that respect.

 

Someone once told me that a wide-angle lens can do the job quite

adequately. So, I asked at the camera shop nearby and they had a set

of options - a 18-35 Nikor, a 19-35 Promaster and a 19-35 Sigma lens

with varying prices and varying quality of lens.

Then I found on ebay that some retailers sell fisheye lens that

convert the 28-80 to a wide-angle lens. (They screw on the top of the

28-80 where the UV filter sits). These converters/fisheye lenses are

available for 1/10 of the price of the wide angle lens and have

greater angle of view than even the Nikor.

 

This begs the question....

If both a wide angle lens and a fisheye mounted on the 28-80 can give

the similar panoramic effect- then why should people go for the more

expensive lens system at all?

Also, if some kind hearted expert could point me to a web site(s)

where the pros and cons of these 2 solutions are discussed with

example photographs.

 

Thanks very much for your help in this regard.

Joy Bhowmik

fisheyes are very specialize and once the gimmick dies, it's not useful much at all.

 

converters and cheap ultra wide zooms usually are slower. they also distort more than primes.

 

wideangle primes usually are faster and exibit less distortion than widezooms. i think they are the most useful among your options though it depends on your usage and needs.

 

i recommend you rent a 24mm or 21mm and see for yourself.

The fisheye adapters that you screw onto the end of your existing lenses (usually 0.42x or 0.25x adapters) are notoriously unsharp. You usually have to stop the lens down to f/16 or f/22 to get at least some sharpness at the edges. But they are fun to use and they can be cheap ($50 and up).

 

Also, as with all fisheye lenses, straight lines remain straight only if they pass through the center of the image. All other lines bow outward in a strange distortion. I actually like the effect so I bought a real fisheye lens. It's sharp and it's fun, but if you use it much, people get anoyed with the results. It's quite distorted.

 

You can get a new Zenitar 16mm fisheye for less than $150 if you look around, but since this is a manual lens, not all Nikon cameras can get their meters to work with them. Not sure about the N60, but the N65 and N85 won't work.

 

The other type of wide lens (rectilinear) at least trys to keep things straight. Better quality ones (read: more money) do a better job of it and are sharper and have less flare. So you often get what you pay for --- if you do your research or you're just lucky. The Nikor 18-35 is a good lens for the money and so is the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.

I'd second Jim's advice on the Sigma 7-35 2.8-4. I was at Angkor in Cambodia last year and was frustrated by my 28-80 which simply could not cope with the scale of the buildings. So this year I went back with a newly acquired Sigma. The results were stunning. As long as you're not pointing up or down too much, your horizons and verticals will be pretty straight, and the sharpness is beautiful. The only downside is that filters are 82mm and very expensive, but Sigma do their own range of EX filters which produce wonderful results. Nikon's equivalent lens is 4x the price, and as Sigma have just brought out a 15-30mm, you should be able to get a good deal on the 17-35mm. Steer clear of other makes - Tokina, Cosina etc - you'll only be disappointed with the results and want to upgrade in a year. I've never heard of screw in fisheyes to convert 28-80 lenses - I guess they don't sell them in the UK, and that says it all! The Sigma lens will hold its value because it is so readily comparable to the much more expensive Nikon. You won't be disappointed, and by cropping the top and bottom of your images, you can cheat and create panoramic photos. Bear in mind though that the pros use panoramic format cameras that cost thousands of pounds to do that for real! Enjoy!

Don't go with the converters unless you want really dodgy photos. In my experience they are strictly for fun only, and they are not that funny either.

PS don't forget you could use your current lens set in its longer focal range and stitch your pictures together to make a panorama. It would be better to do this with digital but your could get your film scanned on to CD and go from there. There are lots of sites explaining how to do this eg

 

http://www.filmnh.org/Documents/how_to_take_location_photographs.htm

 

It works with prints too but does not look as professional.

 

good luck

Thanks all for your advise. I have since then asked a friend of mine who also strongly discouraged me from buying a converter.

He also mentioned, buying a prime wide angle.

His reasoning is that for panoramic shoots, which happen about 20%-25% of the time for me- it should fit my needs quite adequately.

So I researched a bit more on the net and I have a few more questions.

 

Topic: Buying a 20 mm fixed focal length vs buying a 17-35 mm lens-> 1.What is the difference in image quality?

2.Please confirm my understanding that the 17-35 mm will afford me greater flexibility in composition.

3.Is that a whole lot of flexibility or just a little. i.e. do I shell out an extra $650 for effects that can be easily achieved by cropping?

4. This is related to 1 above. I am told that a prime is "faster" because it allows bigger aperture. Does that make a difference to iimage quality?

5. This is also related to 1 above. Does a prime offer greater depth of field than the equivalent setting on the zoom. ie. 20 setting on a 17-35?

Go the cheapest way you can because I'll guarantee you will burn out on a fisheye lens in a big hurry. Just too hard to use and way too limited.

A prime such as a 20 f2.8 will give the same depth of field as a zoom that has the same aperture such as a Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 at the same settings. The zoom will be WAY more expensive however and more bulky to carry. A cheaper zoom such as the Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-f4.5 will be more reasonably priced and lighter but at the loss of speed (maximum aperture). Therefore it will be more limiting in the light conditions you can use it in without using a tripod, this may be a worthy trade-off only you can decide.

 

Cheaper third party zooms such as Sigma, Tamron etc. are worth considering, but may be inferior in sharpness, build quality and distortion compared to the prime, or Nikkor zoom. Still that might be a reasonable way to try wide angle photography at a rational price, you can always trade up to a more expensive lens in the future. A fisheye is an expensive gimmick that is not too useful beyond very specialized purposes. A convertor in my opinion is money down the drain.

 

To sum up: the very best zooms (f2.8 aperture) are equal in quality to the best primes, but much more expensive and heavy and possibly more flare-prone. A lens (zoom or prime) with a 2.8 aperture is useful in a wider range of lighting conditions than a slower lens. Any lens at _say_ f8 at 20mm is going to have the same depth of field. But a cheaper zoom may have more distortion and flare problems.

Thanks everybody for your very helpful insights.

I have just bought myself a

Nikkor 18-35mm f3.5-f4.5D IF-ED AF

I have used it today and am waiting for the results eagerly.

If I like what I see, I will keep it. Considering all your advise, I think this is a very worthwhile (although expensive) investment.

Regards

Joy, the 18-35mm is an excellent move in my opinion. For 99% of the people, a fisheye will become useless shortly once the novalty wears off. (The other 1% are those who specalize in fisheye special effects.) A 18-35 zoom is far more flexable than a fixed 20mm.