Alright experts Fisheye vs Super Wide Angle. Show me some ARTSY FARTSY shots

[RumDaddy]

Thats a kewl photo,

 

[burstintoflame81]

Personally I would rather have a normal super wide but the choice is yours, you will get people leaning both ways. Sigma just came out with a new 8mm NON fisheye thats the widest lens supposedly. Go to their site and look. I think its like $1000. I think the fisheye would be cool, but to a degree its sort of a novelty look. There is no way a lens that gives a very specific look like that is going to get used as much as a versatile standard superwide ( UNLESS you only shoot wierd fisheyed photos. ) I think after 15-16 years you should know whether you "NEED" a fisheye or not. If its just something to screw around with, then go with the new prooptic manual fisheye thats like $250.

 

[kami]

You can even make fish-eye photos in post-processing. I 2nd a wide-angle over a fisheye.

 

[outamyway]

All taken with my 10.5 f2.8 fisheye. I like it for landscapes, automobiles, portraits (if done right) and just about any other kind of photography. Plus, with a minimum focus distance of 6", it is handy for almost macro shots too.