Well, the observations are obvious, and the impression I get (at least from Peter's post) is that somehow this is unacceptable, or not a good use for the lens, or that another lens might be better suited to the photos. I only saw four or five pics, and while I do think some may have been better suited to a rectilinear lens, clearly Amita was experimenting a bit (674 pics seems to indicate that), and I'm sure that she'll soon find the ideal use for that particular optic.
The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) that's available for the istd. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > He's saying that on the ist D you are only > using the central portion of the fisheyes > image circle where the effect is the least. > This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the > results look more like a distorted WA shot > than a true fisheye shot. > I'm just now playing with the Zenitar > 16/2.8. > If I compose carefully the shot looks like > a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. > On a 35mm this would not be the case. > > Don > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What's your point? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital > > > cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take > > > that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all > > > since you've taken only the center portion of the image. > > > >http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex > > > > > > > >There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
