Larry,
Bruce expressed my thoughts. I also thought that the single shot that you
referenced and other fish-eye shots (at least the first three in the set)
were very effective.
I know some people do not like fisheye, and I agree that sometimes it
might be hard to use it efficiently (which includes tastefully here).
But fisheye has its place for serious photography (as opposed to
caricatures), and your photo(s) is(are) a good example.
But I have a technical question related to that lens.
I thought you had the same lens as I do, 8mm f/3.5, don't you?
Is that f/2.8 just a typo? I do not see 8/2.8 in K-mount. (Is there one?)
(And I was surprised that there is 8mm/2.8 in some other mounts)
Also, I just discovered that there is Rokinon fisheye 12mm f/2.8
(pentax). But on B&H it is listed as "discontinued".
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089936-REG/rokinon_12m_p_12mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html
At first, I thought that it was just a new lens that hasn't been shipped
yet.. But then I see that it exists on Amazon from a 3rd party seller:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PDHY57E/
Does anyobyd know what's the situation with that lens?
Igor
Bruce Walker Sat, 21 Nov 2015 05:17:52 -0800 wrote:
The fish-eye shot is really effective. Nice!
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
I finally had a chance to sort out the photos from last Saturday into a
smaller set. Here's one of the band and some dancers, shot with the 16-50:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/22733433119/in/album-72157660633912889/
Here's one of the band. In the front you can see the most important member
of the band, Phillip, the tip jar.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/23111687292/in/album-72157660633912889/
shot with my Bowers 8/2.8
For those interested in the whole set of 31:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157660633912889/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
