fisheye or ultrawide?

[anel]

i made up my mind a while a go to save up for the sigma 10-20, but i've been thinking about fisheye lenses lately.. how much work is needed to fix the distortion, and is it worth it, can i get a fisheye lens cheaper than a ultra-wide lens? i'm shooting with a 30D canon.

 

[cfusionpm]

Keep in mind fisheye lenses are also fixed focal length (they don't zoom), and if you don't want the fisheye distortion, a super wide angle is the only way to go.

This was taken at 10mm on my 50D:

 

[anel]

isn't there any way to fix the fisheye distortion in post?

 

[D-B-J]

yeah, you can fix the fisheye distortion in ps.

 

[Johnboy2978]

why would you fix something that the lens is supposed to do? I mean the desired effect and reason for a fisheye lens is to create a really wide and distorted image, no? If you just want a really wide angle, look at the sigma 10-20 or similar lens. Generally I think you are probably going to pay more for the fish eye. IMO the fish eye is of really limited use and has a small niche of use. It would be probably the last lens on my wish list.

 

[manaheim]

why would you fix something that the lens is supposed to do? I mean the desired effect and reason for a fisheye lens is to create a really wide and distorted image, no? If you just want a really wide angle, look at the sigma 10-20 or similar lens. Generally I think you are probably going to pay more for the fish eye. IMO the fish eye is of really limited use and has a small niche of use. It would be probably the last lens on my wish list.

+1

By and large, you get the fisheye for the fisheye effect. If you just need wide, get the Sigma. It's a solid lens. It's the only non-Nikon lens I own and I use it quite a bit.

 

[Dallmeyer]

+3

I was going to ask then i thought ...nah

 

[c.cloudwalker]

yeah, you can fix the fisheye distortion in ps.

Can I see an example? PS may be able to do it but, somehow, I have a hell of a time imagining usable results.

And, as mentioned by both Johnboy and manaheim, what would be the point?


Now, as far as your choice, the fisheye is an ultra specific-use lens which is used by most people as a special effect which, imho, is usually a fail.

Even superwide I found to not use much at all. I had a 20mm (12.5mm on a crop) and I sold it within about a year because it was just too darn wide. A 24mm was as wide as I needed. The 20 looked too much like a special effect to me and special effects start looking old real fast.

 

[rufus5150]

fisheye lenses are also fixed focal length (they don't zoom)

Tokina makes a fisheye zoom.

 

[anel]

well i thought that with a fisheye i would kind of have both, a fisheye lens and an ultra-wide if it can be fixed in ps. but seeing as how it can't be or doesn't come out just right, what are my ultra-wide options? anything else than the sigma 10-20? i guess it's pretty cheap and sharp.. anything cheaper?

 

[manaheim]

well i thought that with a fisheye i would kind of have both, a fisheye lens and an ultra-wide if it can be fixed in ps. but seeing as how it can't be or doesn't come out just right, what are my ultra-wide options? anything else than the sigma 10-20? i guess it's pretty cheap and sharp.. anything cheaper?

It can be but it basically scrunches the image down... imagine pulling all the corners of your image in.

And for ultrawides, IIRC, the Sigma 10-20 is the cheapest. They have older copies you could pickup which might run a little less. I think the newer one is a bit improved.

 

[shaunvdl]

does anyone know the best fisheye attachment for a Cannon D500? I know that the quality is not as good as when you buy the lense but I am only getting it for fun. thanks

 

[Melesse]

I bought the Sigma 10-20 a couple weeks ago and took it with me to Colorado for a business trip. I ended up being really disappointed with it for two reasons.

First, the distortion around the edges is pretty bad. I didn't think it would bother me, and it's not the worst thing in the world, but I'm really not happy with the way a lot of the pictures I took turned out (and, admittedly, part of this is VERY likely not having used a wide angle before, and this might improve in time, if I learned the lens).

Second, and much, much more importantly, the lens is very soft around the edges. Very, very, out of focus looking soft. It also seems more obvious in the left side of the lens as opposed to the right, so this might be a manufacturing defect, as I have heard those occur in the Sigma's on occasion.

Either way, I'm returning mine because of the softness. Trees in the center of the picture were sharp and in focus, everything on the edge is blurry, no matter the distance. I'm planning on getting a refund rather than just exchanging it for the first reason, and just using the kit lens for landscapes.

Mel

 

[AlexL]

ultrawide I think it should be better for you to convert an ultrawide photo in PS to fisheye (by reversing the calculation) then converting a fisheye photo to an ultrawide. You'll probably be using the ultra-wide much more often than the fisheye and doing it the other way seems like the most logical way.