Looking for a fisheye

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by rosspennyphotography, May 16, 2010.

  1. I'm looking for a fisheye, preferably something like an 8mm as I have a 10-20mm already, I just want something that doesnt distort the subject at the edge of the picture.
    But everywhere I look, the fisheye's are so expensive! Especially as I'm looking for an auto focus one.
    Does anyone have any ideas on an affordable auto 8mm?
  2. What do you mean by "distort the subject at the edge of the picture"? Are you referring to the ring of chromatic aberration circumnavigating the round image?
    How expensive is expensive to you? What are you willing to pay for an autofocus version? A used excellent condition 4.5 mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheyecan set you back around $1000 US minimum. Please note that it is designed for a smaller sensor camera.
  3. I'm not thinking there will be one for next to nothing, it's just £600 is a bit expensive for me, and I looked at the above Peleng and a Samyang too, and theyre only about £200, and it's just kind of hard to believe that you pay 3 times the amount for the difference between a Manual and an Auto Focus
  4. I think what Ross means is that he doesn't want the s-t-r-e-t-c-h at the margins of a rectilinear image. These make balls stretch into eggs and ordinarily thin people appear very fat (and stretchy).
    Ross, check out the Russian, manual-focus MC Zenitar 16mm diagonal fisheye, available in many mounts for $250 or so...
    Focus isn't fussy, so prefocusing (via the focus scale) is no big deal. Depending on your camera, you can use stop-down metering, which is also quite easy.
  5. Ross, I somehow didn't catch your second post. So you're shooting with an APS-C. You can see some sample images of the Zenitar 16 on a 40D at the link I provided, but you probably want wider than that.
    I honestly wouldn't worry about the autofocus issue. Depth of field is already HUGE with any fisheye. Just make sure the lens has a usable focusing scale with depth of field markings, and USE it.
  6. I actually have a Zenitar, but yes you are right, I did want something wider, I have been thinking about not paying 3 times the price and instead using manual focus, it would probably be the easier option.
    I was just curious to see if there was any better deals out there.
  7. Why dont you try using your 10-22 and create the fish eye effect in Photoshop
  8. Actually, some of the possible options have no focus at all--everything is in focus from real close to infinity. I wouldn't worry about focus overmuch.
    I too am not quite clear on the fisheye without fisheye effect criterion you're setting up. Any real fisheye is going to compress images close to the edge of the field.
  9. I basically dont want distorted edges like when it stretches the photo like my 10-20 gives me, like here http://rosspenny.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/img_4691.jpg and ive seen the prime lenses are a lot better
  10. Ross: I cannot see a problem with your image. Great shot by the way!
    I get that same "distorted edge" with my Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. But, these are two different classes of lenses. Also, I do get a similar edge distortion with the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye and consider it to be the accepted norm. Any circular fisheye will not be any different.
  11. Do you know what a 8mm circular fisheye lens is? You better search here or google. It gives you a round image of 180 degree view. So very stretchy!
    With any rectilinear ultrawide lens you must compose your image well to get the results you want. It takes time, perserverance, and a little luck!
  12. I know a fisheye gives a 180 view so it does stretch it, but in my picture you see the edges being distorted, and it was shot at 10mm, but my friend shot this image http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2774/4023022389_8cf73f708d_o.jpg with a 10mm prime fisheye lens, a sigma i believe, and there is no distortion, that is what I want, no distortion at the edges, I just thought a 8mm would be good too as 10mm is the lowest my lenses go at the moment.
  13. Ross: I now understand your problem with the edge distortion. Your 10-20 is just as bad as the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Mark 1 at 16mm. The corners of that lens was fuzzy on the copy I borrowed. The Mark 2 version is a substantial improvement.
    Anyhow, have a look below at some excellent samples from the 4.5mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheye:
  14. yeah, you see the only thing i dont really like about that is the vignetting
  15. Ross: If you are referring to the vignetting of the 16-35/2.8 Mark 1, I would agree. But, if you are referring to the sample Flickr images of vignetting on the Sigma 4.5mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheye, I cannot see it and would disagree.
  16. Ross I use the Sigma 8mm F3.5. It is not a cheap lens but works well on both full frame where it is circular and it works on my 7D where it is not quite a full frame fisheye image - it clips out the corners of each frame slightly. The AF is pretty good and once you are at F5.6 or above the image quality is really not too bad. Here is a shot in Time Square
  17. The black surround is the part I'm not fond of as it wouldnt really fit with my picture style.
  18. You need a wider lens - the black syurround is where the lens does not illuminate the sensor. With an 8mm lens on full frame you get the above result, on APS-C you have small black areas in the corners. I cannot tell you what you need on APS-C to cover the full frame but I suspect you need a 9-10mm lens. On full frame the Canon 15mm F2.8 does a great job and covers the entire frame. I can tell you that the Sigma 8mm f3.5 does not quite cover the full frame on my APS-C - here is an example from a 7D.
  19. I satisfy my fisheye Jones once a year or so by pulling out my Nikon fc-e8 lens that was made for the early 90-'s coolpix 9xx and 4500 series.
    It's a lot cheaper than a real FE lens, and of course the quality isn't the same. I also purchased a 28-52 ring to use on my 5d/50mm based on a post here a while back, but haven't gotten around to trying it out yet. I use it on the 2mp 950, and i can do the round shot like Philip's, or the more rectangular..
    The FE effect was something I thought I really wanted for years (Ive been shooting since 1980), and it was until I got it in a box with a bunch of other ebay treasures.
    I don't know why you'd need autofocus in a fe lens.
  20. Ross, I believe you're not actually going for the "fisheye" effect. Seems what you'd like is an ultrawide lens that does not distort the images at the edges. Unfortunately I don't think one exists for APS-C. Your friend might have used careful composition (or just been lucky) that the biker wasn't near the edge, or his photo was fixed with post processing either by cropping or removing the distortion. I use a Tamron 10-24 on a 40D and need to fix most images with Photoshop's lens correction filter. Here is an example of an interior shot at 10 mm:
  21. And here is the same photo corrected in Photoshop. Notice that cropping was necessary:
  22. Ross,
    Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM FLD AF (released a couple of weeks ago) is your friend! This lens is designed specifically for APS-C sensor cameras and costs $699 here in US. It got rave reviews so far. I have the Samyang which is OK but planning to buy a Sigma one.

  23. Ross,
    Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM FLD AF (released a couple of weeks ago) is your friend! This lens is designed specifically for APS-C sensor cameras and costs $699 here in US. It got rave reviews so far. I have the Samyang which is OK but planning to buy a Sigma one.

  24. I do like the fisheye effect, im thinking by the comments that to get rid of the black surround, a 10mm would probably be best, and i think getting a prime 10mm would fix the distorted edges problem
  25. The Samyang 8mm may be what you want, though it does not autofocus. It's not necessary, just prefocus and everything will be sharp since DOF is huge. It fills the frame of a APS-C sensor (no black borders). The difference with other fisheyes is the projection, which is nearly stereographic for this lens, and equirectangular for Sigma fisheyes. A round object near the edge will not be squashed but stays pretty round with the Samyang, something you can compare here:
    http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/Early test report.html (note a full frame camera was used, which shows black borders)
  26. The Samyang does look good, and it is also a very affordable fisheye, does anyone have any experience with it?
  27. I have the Samyang myself (it is also known under names like Falcon, Opteka (6.5mm), Vivitar (7mm), Bower, Polar, Walimex and maybe more. It is a bit soft at f/3.5 but very sharp at higher stops, at least on Canon 5D (I crop the images).
    Some examples:
  28. Does not stretch people as an ultrawide angle or compress as a regular fisheye:
  29. cheers mate, that looks perfect!
  30. The Russian ZENITAR 2,8/16mm is an excellent deal for its money! I am using this fisheye lens for many years on my Contax RTSII/AX, and with adaptor also on my Canon 5DMkII.

Share This Page