|
N_Oo_B
May 24, 2007, 3:54 AM
Post #1 of 22
(6018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
Can I stack a wide angle fish eye lense on top of a zoom lense? how well does it work for climbing (im pretty sure that gives the extreme fish eye look..)
Everytime I look for lenses for my camera it seems they have 2x 2.5x and 3x zooms..but in all their pictures they show sample pics all rounded off =\
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
May 24, 2007, 11:24 PM
Post #2 of 22
(5982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
N_Oo_B wrote: Can I stack a wide angle fish eye lense on top of a zoom lense? how well does it work for climbing (im pretty sure that gives the extreme fish eye look..) Everytime I look for lenses for my camera it seems they have 2x 2.5x and 3x zooms..but in all their pictures they show sample pics all rounded off =\
Most digital cameras (canons which you own) accept accessory lenses.
As to the rest of the question, you might need to rephrase it as I'm not really sure what you are asking.
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
May 25, 2007, 6:22 AM
Post #3 of 22
(5964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
well I've heard of using a fish eye lense on top of a zoom lense for an extreme fish eye bubble look... I was just curious if anybody had tried this personally.. or if they even know if it's possible on a canon..
|
|
|
|
|
king_rat
May 25, 2007, 11:45 AM
Post #4 of 22
(5952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
|
What Kind of camera do you have? might help
|
|
|
|
|
bigfatrock
May 30, 2007, 4:07 PM
Post #5 of 22
(5879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2006
Posts: 1321
|
I don't recommend them. Get yourself the real thing, from my experience....
- The wide angle converters lie about their conversion rate. One I purchased in an emergency situation when my 17-40 broke and was placed on my 50mm claimed to convert to 14mm, it barely converted to 40mm.
- You will get increased saturation in your images
- You lose about 2/3 of a stop when you add a converter
- You will also get vignetting on the corners
They are worthless in my opinion, but I will sell you mine if you really want it. I only used it once and will never have to use it again.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
May 31, 2007, 2:48 PM
Post #6 of 22
(5849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
bigfatrock wrote: I don't recommend them. Get yourself the real thing, from my experience.... - The wide angle converters lie about their conversion rate. One I purchased in an emergency situation when my 17-40 broke and was placed on my 50mm claimed to convert to 14mm, it barely converted to 40mm. - You will get increased saturation in your images - You lose about 2/3 of a stop when you add a converter - You will also get vignetting on the corners They are worthless in my opinion, but I will sell you mine if you really want it. I only used it once and will never have to use it again.
Yeah, but he's talking about for digital compacts.
For an SLR I've never tried it but I used the wide angle Schneider attachment when I had a Kodak 7440 (nice little camera, full manual, flash comp, etc, but no RAW). The addon lens was excellent.
For an SLR I can't see adding glass elements in front of your lenses. Bad enough to add a UV filter or be forced to add a 1.4X TC.
I don't know about his specific question but I would do a little research on the addon adapters...some are quite a bit better than others.
|
|
|
|
|
bigfatrock
May 31, 2007, 3:30 PM
Post #7 of 22
(5842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2006
Posts: 1321
|
The 1.4x Teleconverters are actually pretty awesome, if you go with the the name brand, Canon or Nikon depending on your rig. The only real downside is slightly softer images and slightly slower reaction time on focusing.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
May 31, 2007, 10:49 PM
Post #8 of 22
(5812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
bigfatrock wrote: The only real downside is slightly softer images and slightly slower reaction time on focusing.
Kind of a big downside.
|
|
|
|
|
bigfatrock
Jun 1, 2007, 12:30 AM
Post #9 of 22
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2006
Posts: 1321
|
It is not super noticeable and it's not like climbing is a fast action sport like basketball or football where you would need the super fast focusing speed. The images are still excellent and will look great when sharpened in post production. It's a great tool to have when say, you are shooting something that requires a long approach and you can't haul out a 300mm lens. IMO it's a must have in every photographers bag. Just make sure you go with professional glass and if you shoot Canon use the II series, they are better than the I series.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Jun 1, 2007, 5:35 AM
Post #10 of 22
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
bigfatrock wrote: It's a great tool to have when say, you are shooting something that requires a long approach and you can't haul out a 300mm lens.
Can't, or don't want to?
In my opinion, the quality is just not there in the 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters.
Strong legs make for better climbers, you should be training with the 300mm /2.8
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Jun 4, 2007, 3:49 AM
Post #11 of 22
(5690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
well, I'm not in the professional market yet. Though I agree with the concept. If you're a pro, bring any and all gear nessary.. suck it up and get where you need to be with the right chunk of glass to do the job. it's not like YOU'RE the one doing a runout 5.13... =P
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 4, 2007, 4:41 PM
Post #12 of 22
(5656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
grayhghost wrote: bigfatrock wrote: It's a great tool to have when say, you are shooting something that requires a long approach and you can't haul out a 300mm lens. Can't, or don't want to? In my opinion, the quality is just not there in the 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters. Strong legs make for better climbers, you should be training with the 300mm /2.8
slightly softer images defeats the purpose of good glass in the first place.
TC's might be a necessary evil but I don't like them. I gave up on 2x TC's now just use a 1.4x when I need a little more reach.
IMO, better to go with a slower fixed lens (like a 300 f/4) than a faster fixed lens (like a 200 2.8) and a TC.
Of course it's really just a matter of how anal retentive you are because I've seen many good (larger) prints taken with a TC and the 1.4xon a sharp lens has been decent when i've needed it.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 4, 2007, 7:00 PM
Post #13 of 22
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I got a 1.4 TC to go with my 400 2.8 IS right before I left for Yellowstone, no testing before hand. At first I was really disappointed with the photos, as they were hella soft. But, once I worked out the quirks then the photos look almost as good as without the tc, you have to go to 100% crops to tell the difference. Going to get a 2x pretty soon. And I saw many, many people shooting with 1.4, 2.0, and even 1.4 and 2.0 together with the bigger L primes.
FYI, what I noticed was that when I use the TC and a monopod, it is best to turn IS off if the shutter speeds are over 1/800th or so. This generation of IS "should" be able to sense a monopod / tripod, and it does work well with slow shutter speeds, but not so well with faster speeds. Hand held, I didn't notice much of a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Jun 4, 2007, 9:32 PM
Post #14 of 22
(5588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
"when I use the TC and a monopod, it is best to turn IS off if the shutter speeds are over 1/800th or so" Wes, what were the symptoms that made you decide this?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 4, 2007, 11:03 PM
Post #15 of 22
(5566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
The photos were soft to to point of being unusable. It is kinda strange, the 400 without a TC works fine on a monopod, with IS and whatever shutter speeds. I think I am going to have it serviced sometime this summer, just a tune up sorta thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Jun 4, 2007, 11:05 PM
Post #16 of 22
(5561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Yes, that is counter-intuitive. Thanks for the warning!
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 11, 2007, 6:34 PM
Post #17 of 22
(5376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
400 + 1.4 TC, heavily cropped
|
|
|
|
|
stevenosloan
Jun 11, 2007, 9:59 PM
Post #18 of 22
(5349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2006
Posts: 16
|
@wes
it looks good and sharp, but what does heavily cropped mean? are we looking at say 66% view, 75%, 100%, etc. ?
on the topic of add on glass, I agree go for the real deal if you can...it will almost always look better. Anyone know of a cheap fisheye that'll fit nikon f-mount on the D70 and still give me AE?
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 11, 2007, 11:44 PM
Post #19 of 22
(5340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Not quite 100 percent, but here is a 100 percent crop. Not perfect, but more then good enough for solid large sized prints:
And, I would love to not have to use the TC, but having the flexibility of the 400 2..8 seems like a good trade off to the 500 4.0, though a 600 4.0 would be nice as well. Maybe when I hit the powerball! I wouldn't really want to use it on anything other then a really sharp prime, though I have seen some people that get solid results with zooms and tc's, I think it is a bit hit or miss.
I know a couple people that have this fisheye:
http://www.pauck.de/.../peleng_fisheye.html
Still like 350 or so.
(This post was edited by wes_allen on Jun 11, 2007, 11:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 13, 2007, 6:23 AM
Post #20 of 22
(5302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
wes_allen wrote: Not quite 100 percent, but here is a 100 percent crop. Not perfect, but more then good enough for solid large sized prints: [img]http://www.knowchaos.com/photos/albums/userpics/10001/byb100001.jpg[/img] And, I would love to not have to use the TC, but having the flexibility of the 400 2..8 seems like a good trade off to the 500 4.0, though a 600 4.0 would be nice as well. Maybe when I hit the powerball! I wouldn't really want to use it on anything other then a really sharp prime, though I have seen some people that get solid results with zooms and tc's, I think it is a bit hit or miss. I know a couple people that have this fisheye: http://www.pauck.de/.../peleng_fisheye.html Still like 350 or so.
I use a 1.4x on a 80-200 2.8 zoom but I'd rather have a 100-300 f/4 in most cases. The 80-200 w/ 1.4 is definitely acceptable but it's not amazing. Perhaps if it was a prime it would give better results with the 1.4 but I think you are generally better off going with a longer and slightly slower lens then adding TC's if you find your adding the TC all the time.
I think the Peleng is the same as the Zenitar fisheye. They are fairly highly recommended. I almost got one, then I realized other then a few shots I have in mind, I actually hate the fisheye perspective and I have a rule of no lenses I won't routinely carry and use.
On a side note. I've been messing with a Arax Tilt and Shift that I assumed I'd either grow bored of, or the quality would suck.
Well I was editing/web sizing some shots I took with them last month and looking at the 100% crop images the detail/resolution of this lens is truly amazing. Yes, I was shooting at f/8 but I can't really see a reason to shoot wider for scenics or architecture. Perhaps I got a stellar copy but I have to say this is a truly fine lens which had me holding my breath and crossing my fingers when I sent the $300 that it wouldn't be total trash.
my cost $300 shipped! i have to say everyone should own a shift lens, they are addicting.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Jun 13, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #21 of 22
(5279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
pico23 wrote: I think the Peleng is the same as the Zenitar fisheye.
peleng is 8 mm f3.5 and zenitar is 16mm f2.8 fisheye.
I got zenitar for ~120$, it is excellent on fullframe, but not so exciting on a cropped body.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 13, 2007, 11:45 PM
Post #22 of 22
(5261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
That sounds correct...as does the price for the Zenitar which is suprisingly good for a lens of that price from what I've seen.
Is the peleng circular? THe zenitar is full frame IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
