20mm vs. 19-35 zoom; also fish-eyes

[keithsnyder]

I have a 28-80mm zoom, and plan to get a wider-angle lens, mostly for

landscape shots. The two lenses under consideration are 20mm fixed

and a 19-35mm zoom. The fixed on ebay are usually more expensive

than a the zooms, but is there any advantage that outweighs the

expense (low $200s for the 20mm vs. about $140-150 for the zoom)? I

also am wondering because there would only be 21mm through 27mm

missed.

 

Fisheyes: I see fish-eye attachments for about $60 vs. true fish-eyes

for about $250. What about differences there?

 

Upcoming trips: Barrie, ON and Niagara Falls; southern FL and the

Carribean; and Hawaii.

[jimstrutz]

The prime lenses are usually of higher quality than the low end zooms. Not only are they usually built better, but they almost always have better image quality; less distortion, higher sharpness, less flare, more contrast, less chromatic aberations, etc. But the zooms have more convenience and are smaller than a sack full of primes.

 

Another reason the wide zooms are less expensive is that they are more popular than primes, and higher volume of sales has reduced costs and increased competition. Of course, not all wide zooms are low cost, and this is usually an area where you get what you pay for. But sometimes you pay too much, and other times you find a bargain.

 

I find that the low cost zooms are often an amazing bargain, but only if the resulting image quality is acceptable to you. In the end that's the type of question that can only be answered by yourself. Everything in photography seems to be a compromise of one sort or another.

[jimstrutz]

Also, fisheye attachments almost always produce very soft images, with lots of chromatic aberations and blurr near the edges. Stopping down to f/16 or more helps, not enough.

 

One good option is one of the Russian/Ukranian made fisheye lenses. You can get them in several different camera mounts or in the M42 mount with an adapter to fit your camera. They are manual only, but the image quality is quite good. I use a Zenitar 16mm full frame fisheye on several Canon EOS cameras with good results. There are good (even free) software programs for "de-fishing" digital image files.

[wyverndude]

I'm a fan of wide angle myself.

<P>

<I>"The fixed on ebay are usually more expensive than a the zooms"</I><BR>

That's going to have to be because you're looking at fixed OEM lenses, and aftermarket zooms. Aftermarket lenses are always considerably less expensive.

<P>All factors being equal, you trade speed (as in, light-gathering ability) and image quality for versatility with a zoom lens. I have a Tokina 19-35 myself and have been very pleased with it.

<P>I've never used a fisheye lens attachment myself, but my expectation would be that they would degrade image quality. There are also unknown variables concerning the compatibility of the attachment to your particular lens. I'm sure some combinations give very good results, others won't, and it's going to be kind of hard to tell what you'll get before you have one.

<P>It seems to be a common opinion here that fisheye is a special-use effect that won't see much application. I would tend to agree; fisheye images tend to be pretty uncommon, and I haven't seen that many views where I've wished for one.

<P>That being said, the <a href="http://www.kievcamera.com/razdel.php?razdel=14">Russian</a> lenses can be had for extremely reasonable prices, and can be expected to be better image quality than even a very good fisheye attachment on a very good lens.

[al_kaplan1]

If you figure out what all those trips are going to cost you the few extra dollars spent on a quality lens becomes meaningless. Get the 20mm and "zoom" with your feet! I like nice sharp lenses with minimal distortion, decent speed, and minimal flare; that pretty much means single focal length! After shooting with the 20 you might even decide to dump your other zoom for some good fixed focal length lenses.

 

Fish eye converters are fun, but I've never seen one that was anywhere close to the quality of a fish eye prime lens.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I have quite abit of experience with addon fisheye adapters.They are a great way to get fun effects but the image quality doesn't even come close to good enough for landscape work.The russian fisheyes are the bare minimum you would want for that

[christian deichert]

Get the 20mm fixed. It'll be sharper and faster, and in the long run, that's what counts.

 

Fish-eye adapters that are available on today's market will NEVER add up to the quality of a fish-eye lens. Go for the fish-eye. If it's the look you want, you'll thank yourself later for getting that look in quality photos, rather than having pictures that look like they were taken on a Holga.

 

Bottom line for either decision: you get what you pay for.