| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2013 12:50:42 PM · #1 |
My lens lineup is pretty complete in my eyes (covering 16mm-400mm with L-glass plus a 50mm/1.4 for low light and a 180mm macro), but I may have some mad money and wondered about picking up either a fisheye or a tilt-shift. I have little experience with either and wondered what opinions were about which would have more use? I see also that Canon doesn't really have an ultra-wide fisheye and so don't know what lens to consider buying (I pretty well only know Canon lenses).
Opinions? |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:09:56 PM · #2 |
Isn't the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide wide enough? How wide do you need????
I'm not a techie, so my comments are purely about aesthetics. Are you talking about a true TS or a lensbaby? True TS allows you to both add and remove (paralax) distortion. Lensbaby is known for both the miniturization effect, and the selective blur effect. Although I don't have a TS or LB, I have a 10.5mm fisheye. Both lenses have very recognizable distortions, so it really is more about the sort of stuff you want to shoot with them. I feel that the fisheye is much less flexible than the TS. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:13:12 PM · #3 |
Canon in fact does have an ultra-wide option in the 8-15 f/4. I have no experience with this lens, and I've heard relatively little about its performance. Bear in mind that a 15mm fisheye covers a whopping 180 degrees diagonally. You have to fight to keep your feet out of the frame, LOL.
Given what you shoot, I'd think you'd get more satisfaction from one of the T/S lenses than a fish. I do love my 15mm fisheye and would not part with it, but it does get relatively little use.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:15:58 PM · #4 |
Pick them both up so you won't regret not purchasing the other.
Message edited by author 2013-01-24 13:16:32. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:45:41 PM · #5 |
| I think for you the T/S is the clear choice, Jason. It's a fantastic landscape lens, allowing you to get stunning DOF without stopping down overmuch. Think long and hard about whether you want the 17mm or 24mm, though: the 17mm, which I have, is absolutely outstanding but it has a domed front optic (like a fish does) so you can't use filters on it. It would, however, be the clear choice if you want to shoot architectural interiors. The 24mm T/S is probably more versatile, especially if you want to play with the miniaturization effect: the 17mm has so much DOF on its own that it is much harder to get that effect. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:49:29 PM · #6 |
I think you can accomplish many more different things with the tilt-shift -- the fisheye is basically a one-trick pony. If you need an ultra wide-angle view ... I say get better at taking handheld source images to stitch into a panorama ... :-)
   |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:59:42 PM · #7 |
I use Nikon, but think basics are same?
first fisheye: I have Nikon 10.5 fisheye and its great little lens, however it is a limited use lens. I see some people use fisheye for everything, guess they are trying to justify having one.
distortion & 180 perspective can do magic but can also hurt the image
Tiltshift : have you ever used one? for Nikon they are all manual ( canon too?) great, great , great images can be produces , but they need patience and practice to get the images look great.
so I have to agree with Vesner, get both ;) |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:02:32 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think for you the T/S is the clear choice, Jason. It's a fantastic landscape lens, allowing you to get stunning DOF without stopping down overmuch. Think long and hard about whether you want the 17mm or 24mm, though: the 17mm, which I have, is absolutely outstanding but it has a domed front optic (like a fish does) so you can't use filters on it. It would, however, be the clear choice if you want to shoot architectural interiors. The 24mm T/S is probably more versatile, especially if you want to play with the miniaturization effect: the 17mm has so much DOF on its own that it is much harder to get that effect. |
Is a polarizer applicable to a T/S lens or will you get odd effects for some reason? I do love shooting with a polarizer and would probably miss it if I couldn't use it.
My goal with the tilt-shift is probably to use it more for it's standard application than for a lensbaby miniturizing effect. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:05:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Tiltshift : have you ever used one? for Nikon they are all manual ( canon too?) great, great , great images can be produces , but they need patience and practice to get the images look great. |
Yup, they are manual focus in the Canon lineup as well. Aperture is controlled by the camera as usual. t's not currently possible to build an AF version of a T/S lens, for fairly obvious reasons :-) Another aspect that's tricky is that if the lens is shifted (not tilted, that doesn't seem to matter) by much, the auto-exposure goes WAY off. It has to do, I think, witht he angle the light's reaching the mirror, but I'm not sure. So basically, at least with the 17mm version, you need to shoot on manual or, if you want automatic HDR bracketed exposures, set your EC to match the amount by which you've shifted, which pretty much is a trial-and-error process. Unless I've missed some way to have the Canon auto-bracket when set at the "M" setting... |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 02:10:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think for you the T/S is the clear choice, Jason. It's a fantastic landscape lens, allowing you to get stunning DOF without stopping down overmuch. Think long and hard about whether you want the 17mm or 24mm, though: the 17mm, which I have, is absolutely outstanding but it has a domed front optic (like a fish does) so you can't use filters on it. It would, however, be the clear choice if you want to shoot architectural interiors. The 24mm T/S is probably more versatile, especially if you want to play with the miniaturization effect: the 17mm has so much DOF on its own that it is much harder to get that effect. |
Is a polarizer applicable to a T/S lens or will you get odd effects for some reason? I do love shooting with a polarizer and would probably miss it if I couldn't use it. |
You can't use any filter on the 17mm; it's domed glass. You can on the 24mm, and there's no reason not to mate a polarizer to a T/S; we do it all the time with view cameras. Better be an ultrathin, though; when you shift, you'll get vignetting somewhere out at the edges. I suppose it's possible that some sort of system could be rigged up for the 17mm; on the view camera we had a rod projecting forward from the lens board and a swinging filter holder that could place the polarizer (or CC gels, for that matter) in front of the lens. But the problem is, the lens board IS what was tilting, the lens went along for the ride. If you mounted the filter holder to your tripod head, say, it would only rotate in the one plane, and so the filter wouldn't be parallel to the glass when IT was tilted. I can't see anyway to mount a filter holder to the tilting element.
Message edited by author 2013-01-24 14:12:32. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 03:04:52 PM · #11 |
want to have a lot of FUN with your next purchase? get a fisheye!
it's a lens you could bring to any social event and have a blast - teach people that all you need to do is get in-your-face close and fire a flash backwards at a wall and you'll end up with countless awesome photos and lots of laughs
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 03:12:50 PM · #12 |
For what it's worth: I like my T/S lens, a Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 MF, my page at the moment :). Completely manual, focus and settings, although the light metering works fine in the non T/S mode (all knobs in the middle), but I find it hard to use it without tripod. But it's nice playing with it and very sharp.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 09:33:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Unless I've missed some way to have the Canon auto-bracket when set at the "M" setting... |
I can bracket fine in M on my Nikon. It's interesting to me that the way the two brands bracket is one of the huge fundamental differences between actual function between them. On the other hand, I can only space my exposures by at most 1 stop. Yet, I can capture a 9 bracketed images in a set. Curious how the two systems differ, for whatever reason. Personally, I'd rather have MORE latitude per shot than 9 shots, but such is how things are.
I've never used a T/S myself, but I have used a fisheye. They're admittedly fun, but I really think the T/S is a much better choice for you, Doc. And I say that because I would probably buy a T/S before a fisheye due to its power for landscape work.
ETA: Hey look, somebody looking to offload a 24 TS..... //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1185617
Message edited by author 2013-01-25 01:13:28. |
|
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: 09/09/2025 07:23:12 AM EDT.
