16mm Fisheye...Yay or Nay????

[Munky]

Thanks you guys!....Anyone else???

 

[Munky]

is It Worth it or not?????

 

[SrBiscuit]

for $200...i would be pretty tempted.

 

[Munky]

What if i spend $200 ant No "Effect" at all ???

 

[Sherman Banks]

What does your current lens collection look like? I would think that a fisheye would be last on anybody's list as it always looks the same. You shoot 200 frames with it and no matter how different the subject matter is, the photos will all look the same. You don't get that with a typical prime/zoom lens as they offer much more versatility. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own one, but I know that there are very rare occasions in which I'd use it, so maybe one day when I'm making some $$$ from shooting, I'll be able to justify it. Plus you don't want to be the guy with 200 fisheye shots making up your photostream (or maybe you do, idk).

 

[Munky]

I mostly shoot cars and auto shows so i'd come really handy...i really want one...

 

[Sherman Banks]

But most people who shoot that kind of stuff use a wide angle, not fisheye. There is a huge difference in the distortion of the two. If you really want it, fork out the $200 and let us know how it goes.

 

[SrBiscuit]

honestly....if you have photoshop (or another comparable editing tool)

i think you should get the sigma 10-20mm (~$430), and then add the fisheye effect in PP.

you'll get a nice 15mm equivalent on a crop body, and then you can "fish it out".
but the 10-20mm will suit your general shooting needs much more than a fisheye IMHO.

 

[Munky]

that the other thing i wanted to decide..with the wide angle thing...cuz i have a cheapo w.angle/macro from ebay and for the price i cannot complain but the Olympus Converter is "cheap" and Ubber Quality.....

 

[Munky]

my bad...i think those convertes are not for DSLR