fish eye

Gimmick - no. Fun - yes. Challenge - yes.

Like a lot of specialised lenses, it takes a bit getting used to. Sometimes what seems to be a good shot in theory turns out a pile of s**t and another time, a marginal composition comes out brilliant.

Ultimately, is it worth adding to your collection? I'd say DEFINITELY yes.


Steve

wow what a flurry of replies! I had seen some excellent examples from the thread of 2 years ago but I wanted to know if the effect still interested people and what was the current viwe of lens quality.

Thanks for all your comments. Now to read up on how best to use the technique. Any ideas of good sources of information?

Its interesting to see no mention of the Sigma lenses. The Samyang lenses seem to be increasing in popularity as a whole.

Dave

I think Samyang are doing well from offering focal lengths nobody else makes for the money. You won't find another 85mm f1.4 for under £300, and definitely not one offering the image quality the Samyang is capable of. Likewise the competition for their 8mm and 14mm is over twice the price.

About the only criticism I can make of them is the lack of auto focus, but with the 85mm it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. There's plenty of light and the narrow DOF means it's usually pretty clear when the subject is in focus.

Ok, so where do we get the Samyang lense?

All I'm comming across are the 500 and 800 mirrors.

HG try UK Digital link They are based in Clitheroe.

Dave

The Sigma fisheye is rather expensive, I think I'd prefer the Pentax 10-17 if I were spending that kind of money, but for a lens that I use rather infrequently the £200-220 Samyang was just what I needed, in fact I'd say it was a bargain. The Pentax mount version has full auto aperture control from the camera body, has the "A" setting on the aperture ring. Focusing consists of setting the distance to 1.5-2m and everything is in focus

John

Cheers Dave.

I think mine came from "Mike's Photo" on ebay, simply as they were UK-based which would have made returning it easier if I'd had any trouble. They have the 85mm and 8mm at present.

The only weird part I've had is someone claiming (contrary to what I'm seeing) that it's soft. I don't really see that being able to read quarter millimetre high text shot from 2m away counts as "soft"! Apparently the Sony forum has decided that because it doesn't have "Zeiss" on it must be worthless, never mind the fact that everyone else loves the lens...

That's the Sony owners for you.

They can't believe that anybody can use a Sony sensor and get better IQ than Sony.

My K110 and K200 both have Sony sensors and both out perform their equivalents.

As for th CZ name, they're not as good as they were...

I tend toward the same opinion with the CZ name. As with cars, Japan has caught up. Nissan make vehicles capable of embarrassing anything from Stuttgart, and Pentax make lenses which easily match anything with a Zeiss badge on. I doubt there's anything on any camera system to match the original FA Ltds, for example.

I'm also trying to be polite while being constantly moaned at for my composition and my habit of not bothering with foreground interest by the same person. Generally I pick interesting subjects and fill the frame with them, making it somewhat unnecessary. Apparently the concept of different photographers having different styles hasn't quite got through yet...

I'm a little ambivalent about the 10-17. It's a very good performer - sharpness is really excellent, colours are very good, close focusing ability unreal (mind the front element!). It's an absolutely brilliant size - tiny compared to other fisheyes and UWAs. But while I do like the distortion at times, I think the reason I don't use it more is because I mostly hanker for straight lines. You can get these with the 10-17, but the necessity to place the horizon centrally imposes many compositional restrictions and the edges are still bendy (though this can also be a good thing).

10-17 @ 17

I still love my DA 10-17 after about a year, But I have just returned from a weeks Hol, which I had to take without my DA 16-50 (as it was having SDM repair)which meant I had to use the Fisheye at 17mm more that usual and I can say it is a great lens.

any photos to show what you mean Bill?

I'll try to post some here but not sure how to.
But there are some on Flickr by Pixellie