So, also thank to the recommendations and suggestions of the many here with great experience in photography, I am having a great time taking pictures. I just love it. I am learning a lot, buying lenses, experimenting, and enjoying the whole thing greatly.

I even started some experiment in basic, amateurish post-production
(for example:
Pre:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taymtaym/8164964698/in/set-72157631954884573/lightbox/
Post:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taymtaym/8202036894/lightbox/

- Trying to make Spiderman's colors more vivid and comic-style)

So, I started to think about a fisheye lens. Just for fun. I am not really in the mindset for purchasing any, but I am fascinated by the lens itself and its creative use. So, I was wondering, is there anyone here who owns one, would like to share some picturess, or some thoughts? Or, do you have any interesting pictures you particularly like?
It is a highly specialized type of lens, indeed. I am just curious to learn and share some thoughts with you.
I've been searching on Flickr, and there are some amazing photographs...

With respect to that photograph (cool costume) you should try the touch-up tools in your favorite photo editor to get rid of the giant camel-toe (or is that moose-knuckle?) on Spidey. It's most definitely not flattering.

Otherwise, cool.

I use a fisheye lens all the time at weddings, lots of examples on my blog if you search them out...

http://crismatthews.com/blog/

It's not really that specialised, and lenses can be picked up pretty cheap if you look. I started with an 8mm Peleng when I had a cropped sensor camera, but I now have the Canon 15mm as it better for professional pictures.

What are you using to edit your pictures ??? Lightroom is the way to go if you haven't already.

Cheers

Cris

Thanks Cris, fantastic pictures on you blog! I am going to take my time and look at those tonight.

The Spiderman picture linked above is the only real editing I have attempted, and the only one done with some clear goal in mind and that produced some decent result (to me, of course).

I used ACDsee, which I find great as a picture manager and viewer. I would not know how good it is in terms of post production, but in spite of several powerful tool, I have never compared it to Lightroom. I'll definitely look into that should I get more serious with editing

Chris, you have some amazing work in your blog. Congratulations! (Of course I could not help giving a look at that now, from the office... :D).
Do you also have a Flickr account maybe, for your non-professional work?

One good way to see what you get with different lenses is the old pbase photo sharing site. It has the handy feature of letting you search photos by the lens they were taken with (as long as the lens info is in the EXIF data).

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_8_15_4l_fisheye_usm

Thanks Andy.

Funny that I just now found out that also Flickriver allows a lens-based search into flickr itself:

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/
I can't understand why Flickr itself does not let you search by lens. Silly of them.

Edit: No Canon Fisheye samples available on Flickriver, though...

Handy.

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef15mmf28fisheye/

Oh, right, I was looking for the 8-15 Zoom only. Thanks for pointing that out. There are some beautiful pictures there.

So, Canon makes:

* 8-15 Zoom, f/4L Euro 1200
* 15 Prime f/2.8 ??? (not found anywhere in IT, including amazon, which is weird. It's Sigma counterpart is around
Euro 700)

Again, I am not in for buying one, at the moment, I am just talking for the sake of it

Was the Canon 15mm f/2.8 lens discontinued? Nowhere to be found in EU.

It is listed in the Canon Lens lineup in the US website:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_15mm_f_2_8_fisheye

But not on EU Canon websites.

Think they do the 14 and 17 now (as well as the zoom):

http://www.parkcameras.com/c/68/Canon-Fit-SLR-Lenses.html?fspec=4%3aCanon+EF%7c14%3aWide+angle&Page=1&fbrand=4

Thanks

I don't really do flickr to be honest, and rarely take pictures in my personal life. Just one of those things, I'm not the sort of guy who walks around on holiday with a 5D Mk III and a 70-200. Pictures have a purpose for me, and usually it's someone else's purpose.

Canon have unfortunately discontinued the 15mm fish eye, and it has been replaced with an 8-15mm L series fisheye. But last time I looked the old ones were still affordable on eBay etc...

If you currently have a cropped sensor and don't intend on going full frame then an 8mm fisheye will be much more fun for you

Download the trial of Lightroom and start playing with the sliders in the Develop module. Looking at your edit I think you'll enjoy the "Clarity" slider.

Cheers

Cris

I had the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye for my old D70. When I upgraded to a D700, I never bothered to get another fisheye, but instead got a super-wideangle lens (the outrageous 14-24mm zoom).

Why?

A fisheye just changes the way you look at the world. It's exceptionally difficult to frame things well with a fisheye, but you do have the ability to get up close and personal with your subject. Also, in post-processing, you can straighten out a fisheye image, or even combine several of them, kinda like Android's new PhotoSphere thing.

For my newest camera, a Fuji X-Pro 1, I bought two prime lenses: a 35mm f/1.4 and an 18mm f/2.0 lens (equivalent to 52 and 27mm field-of-view, respectively). I find myself mostly just using the 35mm standard lens rather than the wide-angle lens.

That said, I'm pondering converting my old 10.5mm DX fisheye into a full-frame circular fisheye, although it's requires serious courage to do the process.

I happen to already have a 10-22mm for my APS-C (16-35mm equivalent circa), which I really like. So, in my specific case, I am actually intrigued by the way a fisheye alters perception of reality, and by the creative implications of that.


That said, I once more repeat I am really not (yet) in the market to buy one. And I'll repeat that, over and over, in the desperate attempt to convince myself that is true. For some reason friends who know me well are laughing at me every time I tell them that.

Too bad for us!


Ok, that make sense. I do see myself upgrading to a FF in the future (6D is appealing), but currently I own a 7D, so your recommendation does apply.


Indeed

ACDsee has quite a few interesting development settings, however. So, I already have some room for experimenting.
http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-6/features/develop

Well, since you are not really in the market for one, you might as well grab an el-cheapo fisheye off of eBay to whet your appetite. If you like what it does, then you can think about a higher quality image from a more expensive version.

Eg. there's this $30 "fisheye converter lens" that screws onto a Canon zoom lens (58mm front threads required):

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Super-Wide-HD...=item19c3e5066d

And there are other, similar converter lenses that fit other front thread sizes.

Cheers

Who said I am not?! Oh, of course, I did. Yes, of course, I am not.


Yes, I saw those... Maybe worth trying. They puzzle me in some way, though. I am afraid they may offer a very different experience than a a "real" fisheye. I wish there was some lens rental service here. But no such thing.

This, for example, has something so interesting and beautiful.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidkingham/8170956036/in/photostream/


I found TWO rental services I could use, finally. Unfortunately, none of them has an Canon 8-15 in stock. But, it is good lens rentals are finally around. Prices are not bad at all, either.

Okay, that photo does it for me! Great stuff!

That is a great shot, but you don't need a fisheye to take it. It's made from multiple shots stitched together.

The 8-15 is brand new, and has been delayed a few times. It may be that very few of them have made it to market at the moment.

Cheers

Cris

Cris, really?! I thought it was a fisheye shot crop!!? I so don't deserve one, then... :-D

(... I have even added a 8-15 to my amazon wishlist, which is a bold move for "not" being in the market for one. This lens thing is killer ).

But you need a fisheye for the distorted effect, unless you distort the images before stitching surely ?

(as far as I can tell it is two fisheye images stitched)

Looking at the EXIF data, it turns out that wasn't shot with a fisheye at all

It was taken with the Nikon 16-35mm, which has lots of distortion at 16mm, but isn't a fisheye.

16mm counts as fisheye for most people for a 35mm frame (rectangular frame, not circular). Yes, it's pretty much the upper end of that term, but it's always easier to say "fisheye" than it is to say "insane wide-angle"

Ok, I assume the definition itself of "fisheye" implies distortion. Am I correct in that?

Based on the above picture I linked, I guess distortion does not imply "fisheye", then, as I guess it all depends on the amt and type of distortion. Am I correct in this?

My 10-22mm lens does not distort things in the way that photo shows. Nor does my 16-35L.

There are super-wide angle rectilinear lenses (non-fisheye) as well as super-wide angle fisheye lenses. My understanding is that fisheye lenses make no attempt to correct for the obvious warping and distortion; whereas rectilinear lenses include a number of secondary lens elements specifically to try and correct such.

A good super-wide rectilinear, when held horizontally, will generally show a familiar view of the world. A fisheye lens of the same focal length will always show a curvy view.

The term fisheye lens refers to the effect you get when no correction is made by the lens, as Mark explains above. A 16-35mm lens certainly is not a fisheye lens as the glass goes some way to correct the image, the Canon 16-35mm pulls in a liner fashion towards the extreme edges, but there is little of the fisheye (or fishbowl) effect left.

The originally linked image could be taken with just about any lens if you stitched enough of them back together, the fisheye effect is added in software. I have seem full circular 360degree versions which are just amazing !!!

Cheers

Cris

Like this full-frame Nikkor 16mm Fisheye F2.8 which does not provide the level of distortion seen in the original image.

No that is a fisheye lens, you can clearly see it is not correcting the distortion, see the second image of the Hot Air Balloon in the link you gave.

If that were shot on the Canon 16-35mm lens you wouldn't see the extreme bend towards the edges of the frame, there would be some but it would be more linear as the lens will have corrected some of it for you.

Unless you want to continue arguing the point to the finite detail ???

Cheers

Cris

This is to Cris: I think you may need to visit your forum prefs. I view the forum in flat mode so my last message, though it appears after yours, is not in reply to yours (Cris). It is in fact a follow-up to my previous post where I stated that 16mm is commonly associated as a "fisheye" focal length.

The only argument you'll get is to point out that you don't need to tell me that lens I linked is a "Fisheye" because that's precisely what I wrote in the message and precisely why I posted it.

So I provided an example of a really fine Nikkor fisheye which contains sample images. Since this is a full frame fisheye as opposed to the circular image ones, the distortion is nowhere near as pronounced.

The sample images are an illustration and evidence/example that the original image was most definitely not shot with a 16mm fisheye - the distortion is beyond that of a 16mm. This actually backs up the point you made - this is a software-based photo manipulation, not a fisheye image.

In other words, we're in agreement the entire way. Unless of course you want to disagree just to be contrarian for some reason.

So (back to generic considerations on fisheyes), it seems to me that a fisheye zoom like the Canon 8-15mm, ranging from circular to full frame, offers a great deal of fun and creative opportunities. I understand however that to get all the way to circular when at 8mm, you need a full frame sensor.

Quick tip: I'm pretty sure that if you click on "quick reply" under the post you want to respond to, it'll keep the proper threading for the people who don't view in flat mode. If you just start typing in the reply box at the bottom of the thread, it'll show as a reply to the last posted message.

I have always read the forum in flat mode, but I try to reply like this for the crazies who don't But really, it just helps to keep things coherent, and if you don't want to acknowledge who you're responding to - either by name or by quoting - it's hard to blame someone for not understanding.

It's totally a personal taste thing, but I tend to not like fisheye photos (although I do like that forest shot). I don't even like wide angle lens shots. I get sort of a queasy feeling, like a funhouse mirror. My mind doesn't like that all the lines are getting distorted...

I do view in flat mode, so saw your reply right below mine, and based on previous experience assumed you were arguing some kind of point as you usually do. I am sure you can understand my reply in that context.

Yes, in a full frame camera the new Canon lens offers you a full circular and regular fisheye in one lens. I've not got my hands on it yet, so can't really comment beyond that.

Cheers

Cris

See, this makes me want a FF.
Next time I am picking a different hobby. Jogging, maybe.
It's worse than with self-assembled PCs (it was hard not to get the latest video card or CPU, for me, when I was young and naïve. Now, that I am older and naïve, I have to deal with this...)

Here are more interesting shots, this time from a 8-15mm Fisheye. Really.:)

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EF_8-15mm_f4L_Fisheye_USM/field_report_Scott_Kennedy.shtml


And this is a Flickr Set of 8-15mm samples, still from Cameralabs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/sets/72157627567998640/with/6115075333/

I finally could see some shots taken with a 7D, which means I am sold.
I am now in the market to buy one. I can't lie to myself any longer
After all, Christmas is approaching, am I right?

My BIG (MASSIVE!) complaint with Canon full-frame DSLRs, is that they never include an onboard flash. Whereas such was commonplace on film-based full-frame SLRs.

I WANT a flash on my camera body. It is incredibly useful for fill-light purposes. Indoors, I would probably never use it, preferring slower exposures or a much more capable "external" flash unit, or even my elaborate "lighting kit." But outdoors, the strobe on my 40D gets a lot of use.

That's the one, the only, thing blocking me from updating my antique 40D to a full-frame DSLR.
Oh, that and the collection of cropped-frame lenses I seem to have accumulated in the interim.

We'd have to disagree there Mark, on a professional camera no one would really want on board flash taking up space in the camera. These are really good and almost pocket sized (well not quite)...

http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=CanonSpeedlite270EXII&p=2213

Cheers

Cris

No disagreement there.
Except I'm not after a huge, heavy, prohibitively expensive "professional camera".

I just want a compact, full-frame camera with on-board flash, the type of thing that was normal and commonplace for decades until digital came along.

Cheers

Mark, Canon 6D is slightly smaller than yours and mine (40D and 7D are basically the same size), and the flash units linked by Cris are quite small.

In addition to that, 6D incorporates WiFi and GPS (I'd love to have the latter in my camera).

Just saying.

I think the 6D is amazing value to be honest. Can't wait to road test one !!!

Cheers

Cris

Oooh... the Nikon D600 full-frame does have a built-in flash! Now if only Canon would get with the program. Either that, or I should finally sell off my shelf of Canon glass.

I doubt it, Mark. 6D is brand new and it's there to compete with D600. And no flash on it.

Let us know what you think. I am also waiting for some serious reviews of it. If I decide to go FF, 6D it is. Also, in 2013 I would assume some further decrease in price.

This just sums it up so well:

As each new camera body generation appears, I just wish Nikon had been there sooner back in the beginning, so I could have gone with their system rather than Canon. Way back when.

I very much like Nikon bodies as well, so I really don't speak as a "supporter" of any of the two systems. But that sentence form dpreview.com really doesn't mean much in terms of how the 6D will compare against the D600.
And, I also disagree partly with it. It seems to me that the 6D was designed to be a quite different type of camera than the 5D Mark III. Think of integrated WiFi and GPS, as well as of the smaller body. One may like it or not, but it seems to me dpreview.com is a bit too superficial in that statement.

I dunno. It's something I have observed (to my woe) model after model. Canon does the bare minimum they think is required to sell "upgraded" models, but nothing more. Especially nothing they think might cannibalize their more expensive models.

Nikon more often does the opposite: they don't seem to worry so much about offending their upper tier models, and instead come across as trying much harder to squeeze more functionality into each new body.

As "Number 2", like Avis (the rent-a-car company), they "try harder". Much harder.

Cheers

You may be right. I personally have not been looking at the evolution of DSLR models for long enough to say.

What I noticed - not necessarily related and to be taken cum grano salis as my memory does not go much back in time - is that Canon tries to have one or two specific distinctive features per every new model. 5DII was the one with excellent video. 7D was the fastest shooter, 5DIII has the highest ISO, 6D now comes with integrated WiFi and GPS, 60D had the swivel screen...
I wouldn't be ale to say if that is good or not, as in the end what matters is how each model compare with its competitors overall. I am just saying.

I strongly believe that the camera you use has the smaller part to pay in the picture you take, be it Nikon or Canon they are both equally capable of taking terrible or stunning images depending who s behind it pressing the button.

I choose Canon because the lens range is just better, Nikon just don't anything as good as my 135mm f2. Maybe on paper they do, but not in your hand. And it's the lens that makes the picture. The other reason is that Canon's cameras just seem laid out in a logical fashion to me, where I have to engage the brain with the Nikon's, there are just too many buttons and this reason alone makes them pretty useless to me at weddings.

I do sometimes have people work for me who shoot Nikon, so I do get to process their RAWs, the colour reproduction is more muted but nicer and without doubt the metering and flash systems are better if you are shooting TTL. But at the end of the day both system are totally capable of offering up excellent results.

The in built flash is something that most people why buy full frame don't want. Hence it being missing from Canon's range. I wouldn't let it stop you upgrading Mark, the improved dynamic range alone would help you in situations where you use your fill flash now.

Cheers

Cris

Cris, are you saying this in reference to Mark's 40D, or is it true in general for any APS-C?

Certainly for the 40D not so much so for the newer cameras, but it still applies. The detail you can drag back out of the shadows on the MkIII is amazing when using Lightroom 4.

Cheers

Cris

... because no full-frame digital cameras had on-board flashes until very very recently. Self fulfilling marketing there.

But now that Sony and Nikon are in the game, I imagine Canon will finally, grudgingly, add an on-board flash in a year or two. Then I can finally update the rig and get the other very nice improvements that have happened in the interim.

Or just scrap it all for the latest Google Nexus with 45mpixels, after they get the technology from Nokia/Microsoft.

BIG cameras should always be better than phone cameras (more space for better components), but the bar for both is moving quickly. I don't think it will be much longer before somebody like me is "happy enough" with my phone as a camera (despite the lousy "flash"), rather than the 15lb kit I currently tote about. People like Chris will need better gear for their paid stuff of course.

Cheers

I wouldn't wait Mark, upgrade to the 6D and enjoy it

Cheers

Cris

Yeah, I know..

If you're going to consider buying into a whole new system, and you seem to care a lot about the weight of your new kit, I'd recommend having a closer look at the various mirrorless alternatives (Micro 4/3 from Panasonic/Olympus, Fuji's X-Pro line, or even the big bucks on a Leica M9). It's hard to beat the weight savings. Most of these cameras (with the notable exception of the Fuji and Leica) have D-SLR-like super-fast autofocus systems. Some of them (notably the Fuji and Leica) have UIs that resemble traditional cameras rather than fluffy "kids and pets" modes to gum up the works.

(The Fuji X-Pro 1 doesn't have a built-in flash but has a fancy hybrid viewfinder. The X-E1 nukes the hybrid viewfinder, shrinks the camera, and adds a flash. Had the X-E1 been available from the beginning, I would have purchased it instead of my X-Pro 1.)

Distortion is inherent in the stitching process, whether you start with regular lens or a fisheye lens. Both have to be distorted to be able to stitch them at all.

The act of stitching flat images together produces the same overall effect as fisheye lens distortion. In order to get the images to stitch together, you have to bend them so that their edges meet. Most stitching programs I've seen will use the exif data combined with image analysis to figure out what the lens type was on the photos, taking into account the existing lens distortion as part of its calculations.

Another way to look at it: A set of stitched photos is essentially the same thing as a single shot with a fisheye lens. Think of the multiple-shot group as a "virtual" fisheye, with the capability of going farther past the bounds of what you could do with a real fisheye lens, and into the realm of a full cylinder or a full sphere.

To top that off, in order to get any curved/fisheye/panorama picture to display as a 2d flat image, you have to bend it yet again. Once you've got the stitched edges, there are various choices you can make about how you bend the image to be displayed as a flat picture. All of them involve distorting the image one way or another. The picture of the fall forest is interesting because it places the center point in the sky instead of the horizon. That same image could just as easily have been stitched and displayed as a flat/wide panorama, with the sky at the top.

The Verge has a neat fisheye photo up today.

It's the exact opposite for me. Nikon's button layout and menus feel intuitive and discoverable, whereas Canon's make me do a complete WTF? I just went through that again this weekend, when comparing their waterproof point-and-shoots. I really want the Canon, so I can use chdk, but the controls just feel like an afterthought. *shrug*


By default, yeah, but there's a setting to fix that (which I do -- I don't like the muted colour rendering).

Yes, that's a picture type I will indeed take once I have a fisheye