fish eye attachment

[mxracer32]

im wondering if anyone has used a fish eye attachment and has some pics? i searched and found some in old threads but no one really said what they were shooting with (what the attachment was on)

ive got a canon 20d with a sigma 24-70 f2.8; i would love a fisheye lense but the cash flow is a problem, plus its nothing more then an effect lense, though i seem to be intrigued by this and would like to play around with one. i shoot mostly dirtbikes, motocross. i shot with a sigma 10-22 last weekend and got just a small amount of distortion. back to my original questions, id like to see some pics with info regarding what it was shot with..and if anyone has suggestions on which 'cheap' attachments are better then others. thanks.

 

[mxracer32]

**i shoot for fun and for no other reason. i understand you get what you pay for, and that i will lose considerable qaulity with the attachment.

 

[chrisburke]

you must not have found any of my posts about this, cause I've raved about the attachment I use.. .. I use the Merkury Optics 52mm 0.45x Wide Lens w/Macro the photos I will show were either shot with my d40 or d50.. the fisheye screws onto the end of my 18-55mm lens and it does an amazing job for the money (about 40 bucks) you will notice no bubble look in my pictures.. this is because i hate that look and i dont zoom all the way on on the lens, which creates that look..

Hope that helps..

 

[LateModelSedan]

whatever you do, do not buy one of those cheap screw on "fisheye" adapters. save your money and invest in a true fisheye lens. you will never get the same results from the adapter as you would from a good quality fisheye lens. even if money is an issue i wouldnt recommend the adapter. check out some of mav's photos for great examples of the nikon 10.5.

Just got back from a brief trip to Chicago. Here's what a Nikon 10.5DX fisheye lens will do.

And from a trip in February to Taiwan:

Conensus this. :lmao: Don't listen to what old-timers on forums say who have either never used fisheye lenses and are just going by what other people say, or who have no idea how insanely useful and versatile fisheye lenses are nowadays with the advent of so many great image processing and fisheye conversion programs like DxO and Image Trends Hemi. My fisheye is a no-brainer lens for any travel kit because it's so wide, so compact and lightweight, and it's also an f/2.8 so it's fast and will work well in low light. And with a 160-degree horizontal field of view and 180-degrees diagonally, it's far wider than any rectilinear wide angle lens out there. A 10mm rectilinear lens on crop body DSLRs is still only about a 100-degree horizontal field of view and nowhere close to a fisheye.

If you want to make the same boring photos as everybody else, get a traditional rectilinear wide angle. If you actually want to make interesting photos that stand out, get a fisheye lens and some software. Kidding of course. Both have their uses and I think the lenses are different enough that you can have both in your kit at the same time and not have much overlap. I can get a lot of photos with my fisheye that simply aren't possible with even the widest rectilinear lens, and vice versa. That said, I have the new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (rectilinear) on order. I would have bought either the Tokina or Nikon 12-24 f/4 awhile ago, but I'm partial to needing f/2.8 for a lot of the available light photography I like to do where I'd just get sunk with an f/4 or slower. Can't wait to try out my new toy - just gotta wait until June before they ship.

 

[chrisburke]

whatever you do, do not buy one of those cheap screw on "fisheye" adapters. save your money and invest in a true fisheye lens. you will never get the same results from the adapter as you would from a good quality fisheye lens. even if money is an issue i wouldnt recommend the adapter. check out some of mav's photos for great examples of the nikon 10.5.

if you read his post at all, you would see that he doesnt want to spend the money on a fisheye... he's just doing it for fun, and wants to use a a screw on... obviously it is smarter to get a true fisheye, but not everyone has 600-1000 dollars to buy one.

 

[mxracer32]

the thing is, i really like the look, but its one of those things that when used too much, it gets played out, QUICKLY. more or less it will be me trying it out and seeing how much i actually use it. i always *think* i will use something more then i do. if i decide "wow, its great, i want it on my camera 24/7!" then i will invest in a good condition, used lense. the 40 bucks is still cheaper then what it would cost for me to rent a lense for a week, and that still wont give me the answer im looking for.

chrisburke, i actually have run across your threads\pictures, but you use yours for the wide angle. I am looking for the bubble\distortion and your photos, from what ive seen posted, do not show that. i didnt know however, that the more you zoom the more you get a 'bubble'.

 

[chrisburke]

yea I use the lens for the wide angle.. so that I can get close to the skater (so you can see them), even zoomed out you still dont get that bubble look.. its there a bit, but not a whole lot.. if that is the look your going for, the attachment i recommended isnt for you, you need a fisheye.. a proper one.

 

[mxracer32]

you said if you zoom all the way in so you have no bubble look. i noticed this as well when i used a sigma 10-22 on my 20d; but when zoomed all the way out, and a picture is taken close, i get some distortion. would you mind taking a pic with your setup, zoomed all the way out so i can see what caliber of 'bubble' effect your attachment is capable of? doesnt have to be anything special, a tree, pole, picture of a room, whatever.

 

[chrisburke]

yea, i'll post one for you in a bit.. gotta go check out an old abandoned building.. might make for some cool shots.

 

[LateModelSedan]

if you read his post at all, you would see that he doesnt want to spend the money on a fisheye... he's just doing it for fun, and wants to use a a screw on... obviously it is smarter to get a true fisheye, but not everyone has 600-1000 dollars to buy one.

i did read his post [duh]. if he can invest in the body certainly he can invest in the glass down the line. i gave him that advice because yours was so bad. you've [admittedly] been raving about that attachment forever and quite frankly the results are horrible. to the original poster, save your money and buy what you need to get the results you want. you get what you pay for.

 

[chrisburke]

unfortunatley i think your wrong in saying "if he can invest in the body certainly he can invest in the glass down the line" this isnt true.. not everyone can afford a 500 or 600 dollar body and a 600-1000 dollar lens, some can, some cant... i think your a bit of a dick for saying that the results from my lens are horrible, because they look great, and I've gotten nothing but compliments (not just from people who dont know photography, but also from photographers) my advice is bad, if you have 700 bucks to spend on a lens, but if you dont have that kind of money, then its better than nothing.

 

[LateModelSedan]

unfortunatley i think your wrong in saying "if he can invest in the body certainly he can invest in the glass down the line" this isnt true.. not everyone can afford a 500 or 600 dollar body and a 600-1000 dollar lens, some can, some cant... i think your a bit of a dick for saying that the results from my lens are horrible, because they look great, and I've gotten nothing but compliments (not just from people who dont know photography, but also from photographers) my advice is bad, if you have 700 bucks to spend on a lens, but if you dont have that kind of money, then its better than nothing.

the entire purpose of buying equipment of that caliber is to eventually invest in glass not cheap useless $40 attachments that give poor results. i think its clear by most of your posts that you're the dick, and if you think your results are great then hey, good for you. anything else you'd like to add?

 

[chrisburke]

nope, because i'm done conversing with a child

 

[LateModelSedan]

nope, because i'm done conversing with a child

pretty amusing considering you brought the profanity into the debate. lol. i think that says more about you than i need to say. thanks!

 

[LateModelSedan]

and if you cant take the criticism stop posting your soft, underexposed, boring photos. if the photos in this thread are any indication of what you think is a good photo then you've got a long way to go. confidence can only take you so far.