Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by SuperThinh12, Oct 2, 2008.
such a hard choice. help me out guys
Well, we have no idea what you normally shoot, or would like to shoot so I will give my impression based on what I have:
I have a wide-angle and wouldn't but a fish-eye. A fish eye screams "limited". Limited in its application and limited in what you can get out of it. You know a fish eye photo when you see it. Whereas a wideangle has the utility that it a fish-eye seemingly lacks.
Really though the two (in my view) aren't that comparable.
I find a fish eye is just an "Effects" lens more than anything for me.
While you can take a fish-eye shot and reconstruct it into a panorama or wide-angle shot using software, a super wide-angle is still more versatile and better for composition.
If I could only choose one, I'd go with wide-angle. I'd feel too restricted with just a fish eye lens but that's just me.
lol yeah, thats how i feel. i know that the fish eye lens is very limited. and i plan on shooting panaramics, portait, rollerblading shots so i think i might go with the widee angle
i second what epp_b said
but if you are shotting Nikon you should look at the Sigma 10-20 for a wide-angle ant that will auto focus on the D40/40x and D60
Also there is the Tokina 12-24 better build quaility then the sigma but u loosethose 2mm at the wide end
If you go fisheye, I would highly suggest a diagonal as opposed to a circular. I have a Nikon 10.5mm diagonal fisheye, and it is a lot of fun.
Fish-eyes are great... for about 10-15 pictures, then you get bored with that look and they sit in your case for years... wasted money. A good ultra-wide lens gives you greater usability potential.
this decision really depends on what you want.
so, buy what you want.
if you do not know what you want, do not buy but keep the money
sorry, only read that now.
yes, I would go for WA then too.
i would go with a good ultra wide lens. In my experience you would use it more often then a fish eye.
Separate names with a comma.