| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/14/2007 06:23:00 AM · #1 |
Someone told me that its not that important to have auto focus for a fish eye, and the guy on kenrockwell.com agrees with that.
Anyone care to comment? Im thinking of getting one, but if autofocus is a must ill reconsider
thanks |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:37:09 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
Someone told me that its not that important to have auto focus for a fish eye, and the guy on kenrockwell.com agrees with that.
Anyone care to comment? Im thinking of getting one, but if autofocus is a must ill reconsider
thanks |
Besides that "the guy on kenrockwell.com" sucks, it is mostly true - the wider the angle, the more DOF you have, the DOF of a fisheye is almost infinite, so it's easy to focus manually. At least that is what I know.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 06:54:11 AM · #3 |
here I am thinking that if you Caught a 10.5 meter fish, the focus on your camera is one thing that would be rather important :)
That and trying to find a big frypan... |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:26:21 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
here I am thinking that if you Caught a 10.5 meter fish, the focus on your camera is one thing that would be rather important :)
That and trying to find a big frypan... |
lol...
I've managed to misfocus the fisheye... mind you i'd just come back from the pub and was taking a self portrait... dificult situation to focus even with AF...
otherwise... not that important.
Eg1:
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 07:27:30. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 07:28:52 AM · #5 |
| Yep, at 10.5mm, AF is something that you can do without, especially if you know and use hyperfocal techniques. You can pretty much set-and-forget for everything beyond a few feet. Only for close-focusing do you have to worry about it. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:22:04 AM · #6 |
I'm disappointed, I was hoping to see pics of a giant 35 ft shark or something.
sigh. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:42:11 AM · #7 |
| Check a hyperfocal calculator. I know a 12mm on a FF body gives me a huge DOF (about 1 foot to infinity) at f/16but at the widest aperture DOF will be reduced. Check a hyperfocal calculator. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 08:59:56 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
Anyone care to comment? Im thinking of getting one, but if autofocus is a must ill reconsider
thanks |
I don't think that autofocus is ever a must on any lens. I'm pretty sure that you can always shut it off on almost if not all of the most recent lenses made.
Use it or shut it off but I can't see why that would be a deal breaker either way. It's one of the best fisheyes on the market from what I know.
 |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:42:36 AM · #9 |
heh thanks for the replies, it helps a lot!
The subject bar has a char limit and "15 m fish" is more of an eyegrabber than "15mm fis"
If i had caught a 15 m fish, Id retire early and the spend the rest of my days eating my fish.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:50:44 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
here I am thinking that if you Caught a 10.5 meter fish, the focus on your camera is one thing that would be rather important :)
That and trying to find a big frypan... |
Yea, me too. I really thought I was going to get to see a big ole honkin' fish!! |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 09:57:40 AM · #11 |
Speaking from my own personal experience hooking and landing a mere 2.5 m fish (mako shark), "focus" is VERY important when dealing with a fish this size, especially one that would eat you if given the chance. I definitely would not trust "auto" focus here, LOL. I'd want to make all my own decisions.
jejeje�
R.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:57:03 AM · #12 |
a fish that wide, would likely have a hard time swimming - due to drag/friction ( 10,5 meters is pretty wide ). i think it would be pretty easy to manually focus on such a slow moving beast ;}
seriously though, i've found that when trying to get really deep DOF -w WA the AF system seems to work against me.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 12:00:59.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 12:00:25 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Besides that "the guy on kenrockwell.com" sucks, |
:-D
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 12:07:19 PM · #14 |
is the nikon 10.5 on the list of lenses that wont auto focus on the D-40 I thought it was one of the lenses that it would. or perhaps I should look at mine and now discover that it does not. However the thing does not have a huge range so manual focus should be very easy.
Message edited by author 2007-08-14 12:10:26.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 12:20:17 PM · #15 |
I don't have the Nikon 10.5, but from the depth of field that I get at the short end of my 18-70mm, I don't think AF is very critical on a lens that wide.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Speaking from my own personal experience hooking and landing a mere 2.5 m fish (mako shark), "focus" is VERY important when dealing with a fish this size, especially one that would eat you if given the chance. I definitely would not trust "auto" focus here, LOL. I'd want to make all my own decisions.
jejeje�
R. |
A 2.5m mako shark? You must need some serious fishing line to catch something like that. We have great whites down here, now that is a fish :)
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
is the nikon 10.5 on the list of lenses that wont auto focus on the D-40 I thought it was one of the lenses that it would. or perhaps I should look at mine and now discover that it does not. However the thing does not have a huge range so manual focus should be very easy. |
It's not an AF-S lens so it doesn't have an internal focus motor and will thus not have AF on the D40. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 09:36:39 PM EST.
