I'm not saying it's unacceptable, I'm just saying it's not a big deal. When using them with a smaller than full frame sensor you have a beast that's
neither fish nor foul. My biggest objection is that it makes a very expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly designed lens.
I suppose I was a bit disappointed, I happen to like fisheyes and using them in a situation where you can minimize the fisheye effect on full frame is
more what I expected.


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

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. :)









--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke





Reply via email to