Fisheye Lenses

[Uncle Greg]

My personal choice was the fisheye but I think you need to find your own comfort factor and shooting style here.

The best part is there's no wrong answer.

 

[Groucho]

If you use Lightroom 3, there are lens profiles out there that will de-fish your fisheye shots, effectively giving you an UWA.

Here's an example from my Pentax 10-17mm (the Tokina uses the same optical formula):

I personally much prefer the fisheye look over the UWA look but that's purely personal preference.

 

[Gdad]

Let me know when you decide to sell the 8-16mm.

Seriously, though, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this lens. I am really close to getting one.

In lieu of selling it later I'm sending it back to B&H today. I used it over the weekend and just did not feel the love at all. I decided to move to the Nikon 10-24 instead. I think 8mm is just too wide for a rectilinear lens to be good- and it's inability to use filters is a bigger drawback than I previously considered.

 

[WDWFigment]

In lieu of selling it later I'm sending it back to B&H today. I used it over the weekend and just did not feel the love at all. I decided to move to the Nikon 10-24 instead. I think 8mm is just too wide for a rectilinear lens to be good- and it's inability to use filters is a bigger drawback than I previously considered.

Well that's too bad. I'll still probably buy it if I can find a really cheap copy (cheap enough that I could resell it for more than I pay), but since I imagine that's not happening any time soon unless some fool puts a below-market buy-it-now on one, I guess I'll be waiting.

Still want to get that Sigma fisheye, though.

 

[WDWFigment]

So I was going to PM you with these questions, but then I thought maybe it would benefit the entire class if I asked you in public.

First, the Rokinon/Bower/Opetka/Samyang/Puff Daddy/P.Diddy/Diddy fisheye lens...thoughts on that paired with the D7000? I see Overstock.com has it in stock for $260, which doesn't seem half bad. I'm still unsure whether I want manual focus for WDW, though. I really want to get rid of the Tokina fisheye, though, and the Rokinon is calling my name. I'm thinking I'd take both to WDW then eBay whichever I like less.

Second, I saw you got a mic for your D7000. When I searched your model, I discovered it was well out of my price range. When I searched on eBay for (Nikon, D7000) (mic, microphone) I only found one mic, and it was also out of my range. What should I be searching for? I'm betting whatever mic I buy won’t be unique to the D7000, so I figure I can use a more generic query. What is the connection called between the D7000 and the mic? Is there any reason I can’t get a $6 mic from Hong Kong? (I.e. does quality matter that much?)

Third, what were the drawbacks of the Sigma 8-16mm? I am eyeing one again, and I think I might sell my Tokina after WDW, in which case I’d have an UWA to use that accepts filters for the trip. Although…there will be future trips, so maybe that no-filter thing will end up being a deal-breaker. Is the Nikon 10-24mm a good alternative? I love the Tokina, but I’d really like something wider. Even 1mm is a lot at that level.

Finally, and this is really open to anyone, is there any reason unique to star filters why I shouldn’t get a really inexpensive one? Image degradation notwithstanding, I’m wondering if, since I’ll be shooting into lights with the filter, I’ll get weird optical effects by getting one that isn’t multi-coated. I only plan on using this for a few shots since I think it’s really gimmicky and usually looks bad, but for $5-10, I thought it’d be worth having. Not so much if it’s $30 or so.
Thanks!

 

[annnewjerz]

I can't lend much to this conversation other than saying manual focus in WDW (or anywhere for that matter) is really no big deal at all. I have a 50/1.2 AIS and a 105/2.8 AIS (Thanks, Jeff!) and once you start manually focusing, it really becomes instinctual.

The little "in focus" light on the D90 (or the D7000 I'm sure) works great to tell you when you are getting close or are completely out of focus if your eyes aren't all that great and with a fisheye I'd think manual focus would be even less of a big deal.

I wouldn't want to manually focus the whole time I'm in WDW, but it really doesn't take long especially if you are shooting something static rather than a moving object like a dog or a kid.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You're the expert on ultra-wide, but in my experience I find AF less important as my lenses get wider. The increase in DOF makes precise focus less critical.I don't know what mic Jeff got, but I'll give you a word of caution about mics on VDSLRs. If you want decent sound, you can't shoot with AGC (auto gain control) on. It will raise the volume during quiet passages and you'll hear lots of noise. If you can't defeat AGC, recording audio on your VDSLR is going to suck no matter what mic you have. If you can defeat it, you will want some way to adjust the gain manually during a shot. When the 5D shipped, it was stuck with AGC turned on. People actually made devices to defeat it by using one sound channel to trick the AGC controller and using the other channel to record the audio. With current firmware, you can turn it off, but you can't adjust the levels during a shot.The best solution I've found is to use a separate audio recording device and to use the built-in audio for reference when syncing the audio together. That is a lot of hassle if you just want something basic and simple. In those cases, do you really need an external mic? I'm sure that it is an improvement over the built-in, but don't expect too much.

 

[WDWFigment]

You're the expert on ultra-wide, but in my experience I find AF less important as my lenses get wider. The increase in DOF makes precise focus less critical.I don't know what mic Jeff got, but I'll give you a word of caution about mics on VDSLRs. If you want decent sound, you can't shoot with AGC (auto gain control) on. It will raise the volume during quiet passages and you'll hear lots of noise. If you can't defeat AGC, recording audio on your VDSLR is going to suck no matter what mic you have. If you can defeat it, you will want some way to adjust the gain manually during a shot. When the 5D shipped, it was stuck with AGC turned on. People actually made devices to defeat it by using one sound channel to trick the AGC controller and using the other channel to record the audio. With current firmware, you can turn it off, but you can't adjust the levels during a shot.The best solution I've found is to use a separate audio recording device and to use the built-in audio for reference when syncing the audio together. That is a lot of hassle if you just want something basic and simple. In those cases, do you really need an external mic? I'm sure that it is an improvement over the built-in, but don't expect too much.

Thanks for the response!

A lot of that is over my head, but I'll do some reading to figure out. The reason I'd want the external mic is because I'm going to potentially be recording some videos for a travel website. The videos would need to be professional quality.

I say potentially because: 1) we're not really sure if these videos will work with the product and/or be necessary, and 2) I've never recorded video so I have no idea if I can produce a "professional looking" product. I mean, it doesn't have to have the production quality of a Geico commercial, but it shouldn't look like crap, either. All the video would be is a tripod-mounted interview set outdoors. I don't really know how I could screw that up, but stranger things have happened.

If I knew with certainty that I could produce a good product, I would probably have no trouble getting the mic paid for, but as it stands, I wouldn't want the site to invest in things that I can't put to good use.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[WDWFigment]

I can't lend much to this conversation other than saying manual focus in WDW (or anywhere for that matter) is really no big deal at all. I have a 50/1.2 AIS and a 105/2.8 AIS (Thanks, Jeff!) and once you start manually focusing, it really becomes instinctual.

The little "in focus" light on the D90 (or the D7000 I'm sure) works great to tell you when you are getting close or are completely out of focus if your eyes aren't all that great and with a fisheye I'd think manual focus would be even less of a big deal.

I wouldn't want to manually focus the whole time I'm in WDW, but it really doesn't take long especially if you are shooting something static rather than a moving object like a dog or a kid.

Given this and with what Mark said about DOF, I think I'll be making the purchase. Thanks!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

For learning video, I recommend this book: From Still to Motion: A photographer's guide to creating video with your DSLR (I'd put a link, but I'm having technical difficulties). I'll explain the audio problem a bit more carefully. Since I don't seem to be able to do paragraph breaks (and that really annoys me), I'll put the explanation in another post.

 

[Marlton Mom]

How about going with something completely separate?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/515484-REG/M_Audio_9900_52278_00_MicroTrack_II_Professional.html

I don't know why but I found myself looking at these last friday at the B place. At $153 you'll get much better quality that you would never find on most in-camera Audio recording devices.

The memory card storage option makes it a breeze to edit with on the 'puter

Marlton Mom
PS I have no experience with this either....

 

[Code]

Well I'm not Jeff but I've got a comment about the MF fisheye.. we've always said how the DoF is so huge that it's actually hard to mess up focus, I looked up the numbers...

At 8mm, f/3.5, the hyperfocal distance (closest distance you can focus and have infinity still be sharp) is ~3.2 ft. I just use the distance scale on the lens to set focus just past the hyperfocal distance (like 3.5 ft just to give myself a margin of error), then everything from ~1.7 ft to infinity is in focus. I just leave it on that focus point unless I need to get really close. But even at 1 ft at f/3.5, the DoF is still about 0.7 ft.. huge margin of error.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Sound levels are like exposure levels. Your recording device has to get the level right or the result is too loud/bright or too quiet/dark. Sound levels and exposure levels can be set automatically or manually. When recording audio in auto mode, the recording device has to guess whether quiet moments are simply breaks in the conversation or whether the levels need to be increased. The result is that during quiet passages it boosts the audio level and you hear stuff like camera handling sounds and background noises become much louder. If you can override the auto adjusting of sound levels, you can pick a reasonable level for a scene and stick with it. That's not as good as being able to make adjustments during a shot, but it'll be much better than shooting in auto. Does the D7000 allow you to set audio levels? I don't know. If it does, you're probably OK and a mic would help. If it doesn't, I'd rather by a field audio recorder and record my audio separate from the video and sync up in post. You can use the mics in the audio recorder (which are worlds better than the mics in VDSLRs) or you can attach external mics to that.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Let me also add that I find good video to be very hard. Maybe I'm just slow witted or don't have a knack for it, but it is much harder than good photography. Then again, a National Geo story usually has a handful of people working on the photography and a simple commercial usually has a dozen or more people working on the video. A photograph generally captures a moment whereas video occurs over time. That means that you have to deal with smooth camera movements, audio, changes in light levels, flash can't help you, focus changes during the shot, etc. It may not be any more artistically challenging than photography, but it seems to be much more difficult from a technical standpoint. Oh, and you are also going to lose RAW for video (for now, for no-Red users), which means much more limited ability to fix things in post. My advice - don't make commitments to produce video until you've made a few attempts first.

 

[rossb]

Is the Nikon 10-24mm a good alternative?

Here are some samples from my Nikon 10-24.


http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4949354431/albums/10-24-hawaii/slideshow

For best results click the Full Screen link and do not click Enlarge Small Images.

BTW - I am probably returning the D7000 and sticking with the D90. IQ is pretty much the same between the two, even at ISO 3200. IMO the D7000 is not worth the upgrade. The D7000 has more buttons, dials, and some new features, but in some respects I actually prefer the D90.

 

[Gdad]

So I was going to PM you with these questions, but then I thought maybe it would benefit the entire class if I asked you in public.

First, the Rokinon/Bower/Opetka/Samyang/Puff Daddy/P.Diddy/Diddy fisheye lens...thoughts on that paired with the D7000? I see Overstock.com has it in stock for $260, which doesn't seem half bad. I'm still unsure whether I want manual focus for WDW, though. I really want to get rid of the Tokina fisheye, though, and the Rokinon is calling my name. I'm thinking I'd take both to WDW then eBay whichever I like less.

You forgot "Pro-Optic" which is what I got for about $260 at Adorama- "Samyang" is just a more fun word to say. And I like it a lot- I think it's very good for the price- which sounds kind of bad of course but I'm not saying it like it's a crappy lens I'm settling for- it's just a fisheye is kind of a specialty thing and a little bit goes a long way etc. etc. so in the past when I have had a more expensive fisheye in the bag I always had a nagging feeling of cost vs. use and feeling like I never got that much out of it- KWIM? So I think for longevity I will have a good/cheap fisheye longer than I had a really good / expensive one if that makes any sense.

As for manual focus it's absolutely no problem at all. I hardly ever even touch the focus ring unless I want to get really close to something. The rest of the time it's just sitting a little bit back from infinity and everything in every frame is in focus.

Second, I saw you got a mic for your D7000. When I searched your model, I discovered it was well out of my price range. When I searched on eBay for (Nikon, D7000) (mic, microphone) I only found one mic, and it was also out of my range. What should I be searching for? I'm betting whatever mic I buy won’t be unique to the D7000, so I figure I can use a more generic query. What is the connection called between the D7000 and the mic? Is there any reason I can’t get a $6 mic from Hong Kong? (I.e. does quality matter that much?)

I picked it out because it was the cheapest B&H had I could find with a hot-shoe attachment. I will defer to Mark for all technical microphone talk since I have no dang idea.

Third, what were the drawbacks of the Sigma 8-16mm? I am eyeing one again, and I think I might sell my Tokina after WDW, in which case I’d have an UWA to use that accepts filters for the trip. Although…there will be future trips, so maybe that no-filter thing will end up being a deal-breaker. Is the Nikon 10-24mm a good alternative? I love the Tokina, but I’d really like something wider. Even 1mm is a lot at that level.

Yeah- the filter thing plus the whole big front element sticking out there waiting to get scratched or smashed was just kind of a negative. Plus there seemed to be a lot of really weird distortion across the range- more so than with any of the other UWA's I have had. Really I can't explain everything I didn't like so much- all I know is I used it for a week and just did not get a good vibe so I sent it back to B&H for a refund. YMMV.

As for the 10-24 I am really pleased with it. I don't feel like I'm missing anything not having the 8-10mm. Not only does it take filters- it takes 77mm filters which is what I already have so I didn't have to buy anything else. There are some great examples on Flickr also.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon10-24mm/

Finally, and this is really open to anyone, is there any reason unique to star filters why I shouldn’t get a really inexpensive one? Image degradation notwithstanding, I’m wondering if, since I’ll be shooting into lights with the filter, I’ll get weird optical effects by getting one that isn’t multi-coated. I only plan on using this for a few shots since I think it’s really gimmicky and usually looks bad, but for $5-10, I thought it’d be worth having. Not so much if it’s $30 or so.
Thanks!

Okay- Ew-

Just sayin.

 

[annnewjerz]

Okay- Ew-

Just sayin.

 

[Code]

it's just a fisheye is kind of a specialty thing and a little bit goes a long way etc. etc. so in the past when I have had a more expensive fisheye in the bag I always had a nagging feeling of cost vs. use and feeling like I never got that much out of it- KWIM?

This is my opinion exactly.. I wanted a fisheye after renting one but I couldn't possibly justify the price of the Sigma.

 

[Groucho]

I really want to get rid of the Tokina fisheye, though, and the Rokinon is calling my name.

Is it really that awful for you? Have you considered sending it in for servicing?

Finally, and this is really open to anyone, is there any reason unique to star filters why I shouldn’t get a really inexpensive one?

Probably not, since you'd be going for a special look when using it. I bought a cross screen filter in my early DSLR days, and while I almost never use it (ie, I think I have no keepers with it since my first WDW+DSLR trip, and even then, it was only one or two), it's nice to know it's there.

You forgot "Pro-Optic" which is what I got for about $260 at Adorama- "Samyang" is just a more fun word to say. And I like it a lot- I think it's very good for the price- which sounds kind of bad of course but I'm not saying it like it's a crappy lens I'm settling for- it's just a fisheye is kind of a specialty thing and a little bit goes a long way etc. etc. so in the past when I have had a more expensive fisheye in the bag I always had a nagging feeling of cost vs. use and feeling like I never got that much out of it- KWIM? So I think for longevity I will have a good/cheap fisheye longer than I had a really good / expensive one if that makes any sense.

I believe Samyang is the original manufacturer of the lens (along with a bunch of other currently-available and upcoming manual focus lenses), so it's probably best to refer to it as a Samyang for consistency...

And a little bit may go a long way for some people, but I haven't had that problem. Neither have you, judging by the ratio of Samyang to non-Samyang photos on Flickr lately, eh?

 

[Gdad]

And a little bit may go a long way for some people, but I haven't had that problem. Neither have you, judging by the ratio of Samyang to non-Samyang photos on Flickr lately, eh?

They are fun I have to admit.