Gone fishing?

[Tannin]

Over in another thread I've been chatting with Arthur about the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. It's not a "must have" for me, but then it's not a great deal of money as lenses go.

To those of you that own fisheye lenses, or have owned one, has it been:

(a) A toy: used for a week then forgotten
(b) Bit of a novelty: still have it in the bag, rarely use it.
(c) A handy thing to have around
(d) One of your very favourite lenses?

A bit of background: I'd mostly be using it with a 40D. All my existing lenses are Canon: 10-22 (which I use a lot), 24mm tilt-shift (which I'm still trying to get the hang of - love the theory but the practice will take .. er ... a lot more practice), 18-55 IS, 24-105, and various longer things. I essentially only do nature photography.

Never used a fisheye lens or even held one in my hand. Not fussed about spending $600ish if I end up using it a bit, but it would be silly just to buy one and then wind up leaving it in the car all the time. I do love using the 10-22 though.

I'm off up the bush for a few days, but I'll be back to visit this thread when I get back.

[ricktas]

I dont own a fish-eye.

However I know a photographer who does and it was always on his camera when he first bought it. Some really wonderful images. But after the novelty wore off (about a month), I havent seen a single image taken with it, not to say he hasn't, but if he has, he hasnt been showing me, or any of our friends.

I think the fish-eye has its place and can create some dramatic results, but also think it is a bit of a novelty item.

But, I do love looking at a good fish-eye image.

[parkesy]

hey tannin

(a) i use mine regulary mostly for bmx shoots and other kind of action shots i just love the effect !!!
(b) yes and no realy but it does good a good thing to have in the bag
(c) a very handy thing to have around you never know when you are going to use it !
(d) defitley it would probaly be my second favourite lens of course first is my siggy 10-20 but nothing can beat that

ive attached a image i took with mine the other day if u want to talk anymore about the fisheye just pm me




and i see you are from ballarat i am to

[Harves]

I don't think I'd race out and buy one, but I like some of the image effects they produce.

[Tannin]

Thanks Rick, Parksey, Harves. That seems to be a "probably not", a "yes, absolutely", and a clear "maybe". (Great BMX shot Parksey!)

Maybe there is only one way to find out if I'll like it or not...... Any more comments before I mangle the credit card again?


(Yes, I'm back early. I tend to wander a bit at random when I'm after birds, and I happened to be close to home when it got dark tonight, so I thought I might as sleep in a bed for a change. Be off again in the morning, of course.)

[parkesy]

just a quick note tannin i personally think you should buy a cheapo atm and see if you use it and if you do buy a better one and if u dont you havent mangled the credit card for nothing

[Dan40D]

I had one back in my film days and it didn't real do much for me. Fisheye type photos don't really grab me i'm afraid. I wouldn't be rushing out to buy one anytime soon.

Cheers,

[Tannin]

Thanks guys. More opinions are good to have. What if I turn the question around the other way?

Let's say I bought the Tokina, had some fun with it, and decided to sell it in few months time. (Frankly, I can't be bothered messing about with E-Bay, not my thing at all, so I'd just offer it here (and perhaps a few other places I visit) and be happy to get, oh, let's say $400ish back.) What are my chances of getting a buyer for it?

[parkesy]

i think from what i can see not many people like them except for me and a few others i still think u shud buy a say 70 dollar one of ebay see that pic that i posted it was taken with a 70 dollar ebay one !!!

[Tannin]

Parksey is going to shoot me ....

It turns out that the sub-$600 price was a Hong Kong Ebay dealer, and the Oz price for a non-grey market lens is quite a bit more than that. So I ... er .... bought it anyway. Should arrive in the morning with any luck.

PS: before you really do shoot me, Parksey, I mainly do bird photography, so I've more-or-less got used to truly horrendous prices for lenses. This one ain't so bad.

This will be my first ever non-Canon lens. I honestly have no idea whether I'll like it or not. I'll do my best not to offend members' taste by posting horrendously distorted "look Mum, I've bought a fisheye lens!" pictures here. Still, look at it this way - it might encourage me to post something other than birds!

[jim]

I'll do my best not to offend members' taste by posting horrendously distorted "look Mum, I've bought a fisheye lens!" pictures here

Er, what else are the silly things good for?

[Tannin]

Now that, Jim, is the $64,000 question. Ask me again and I'll tell you this time next year.

I've seen some excellent pictures taken with fisheyes now and again. The key to getting a good one seems to be using that different sort of distortion in a way that doesn't hit the viewer over the head. (Note well: different distortion, for (as you know) all lenses produce distortion, it's an inevitable consequence of making flat pictures out of non-flat objects. The question is, can I learn to use that different style of distortion to my advantage? Only one way to find out!

[jim]

Well, it sounds like fun. Good luck!

[parkesy]

tannin im not going to shoot you its worth the crack in the long run i wioll be buying one soon and trust me you will love it !!!

[Seesee]

Just to add my 2 cents worth, I'm not really into the effect, on the odd occassion a fisheye image catches my attention, but............similar effect can be done in PS using various distortion tools etc.

[Norton]

good for you tannin I have two fisheye lenses, a 15mm 2.8 canon and an 8mm Peleng. I use the Canon reasonably often and rarely use the Peleng but I'm glad I have them.

[Barchboy]

i really love fish eye lenses, though i am glad i dont own one as i think i would get sick of the site of it when i used it continuously for 3 months. one of the mac mags this month (don't recall which one?) has some free software which has a feature where you can turn standard panos into fish eye photos, looks pretty neat, has anyone used this?

[Tannin]

Arrived at lunchtime. Ugly thing, but reassuringly weighty. No lens hood supplied, which is pretty reasonable considering that it does 180 degrees corner to corner at 10mm, meaning the hood would have to be so short as to be practically useless, but it comes with a decent lens cap that probably won't fall off all by itself. (I have never liked the Canon ones.)

I mounted it on a 40D just now and had a play around the office. It has a nice solid feel to it and smooth, firm movements. One thing that could bug a lot of people is that the zoom ring is backwards - or frontwards if you are a Nikon user - you twist clockwise to zoom in. This would have bugged me a lot once upon a time, but doesn't seem to anymore because it's less of a distraction than the way that different lenses swap the positon of the zoom and focus rings.

The Canon EF-S 10-22 has a rear-mounted focus ring, and front-mounted zoom ring, while the 18-55 IS and the 24-105 have front-mounted zoom rings and rear-mounted focus rings. The Tokina is the same as the 24-105 (front focus, rear zoom ring). Although it rotates in the "wrong" directions, my initial impression is that this will be a lot less annoying than the front/rear swap that the 10-22 does.

Some people might wonder what my point is here. Well, the way I see it, the less you have to think about the equipment, the more effectively you are able to think about composition, lighting, stuff that matters. The sooner lens manufacturers put the same things in the same places (front or rear, I don't care, just so long as it's always the same) the better. But the clockwise/anticlockwise thing doesn't seem so intrusive as the frontwards/backwards location of the rings.

Focus takes place at a moderate pace, not notably fast, not notably slow either. Actually, to go the full range from infinity to the very pleasing close focus distance of just 14cm (less than 6 inches) takes quite a while, but with a focal length this short, you are already at or pretty close to infinity most of the time, so in practice it is likely to be a non-issue. The focus motor is moderately loud, not excessively so, and the manual focus ring turns during auto-focus. Given the nature of the lens, I can't see any reason why this should be a problem. There is no filter thread in any case, nor could there be without causing vignetting.

Never having looked through a fish before, I was pleasantly reassured to see that the view isn't wildly different to that of an equally wide-angle rectilinear lens, particularly if you keep it reasonably horizontal. First impression - I am yet to press the shutter button in anger with it - is that I should be able to use this thing quite a bit. At the 10mm end it's very distorted near the corners, but so is any 10mm lens. Short of scrapping the laws of physics, you can't fit an in-the-round scene onto a flat sensor without distortion: the 10-22 distorts it one way, the fish distorts it a different way. We wil have to wait and see, but I shouldn't be surprised to discover that most scenes that work well at 10mm on the 10-22 will work pretty well on the Tokina fish.

At 17mm, things are rather different. The fisheye look is much reduced and (depending on what you point it at) the casual viewer may very well not notice that your lens was anything abnormal.

Anyway, it's a nicely made lens, well-presented, and pleasant to hold. As for the pictures it takes, we will have to wait and see!

[jim]

...it's less of a distraction than the way that different lenses swap the positon of the zoom and focus rings.

Doesn't that give you the SHITS? WHY do they do this?

Sorry. Carry on.

[SpaceJunk]

looking forward to a couple of images Tony, 180 degrees sounds like fun.............. make sure your shoes are clean?