Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Fisheye vs Wideangle

profile picture
b_r_tregs
Posts: 298 - Karma: 204
So i'm looking into what would be a better option for me to save for. A fisheye or a wide angle.

I do about 50-50 photo to video but i definitely see myself doing more photography in the future so 25-75 video to photo. I would like to now what would suit me better, a fisheye or a wide-angle.

I shoot mainly skiing, football, and other sports.

Right now i have a tamron 17-50

I looked at a few rokinon/tokina fisheye lens's



and the same for wide-angle i looked at a few rokinon/tokina lenses


and the classic tokina 11-16 which it seems most of know of.


K+ for help

and Thanks!
Jun 10 2013 10:57PM
2 0
profile picture
b_r_tregs
Posts: 298 - Karma: 204
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822810-REG/Rokinon_FE75MFTB_7_5_mm_f_3_5_Fisheye.html


What about these?

Point being what would work best for me

sorry if I'm makin you work to hard probably put about 5 to many links
Jun 10 2013 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61110 - Karma: 118,335
I'm assuming you have a canon camera yes? the last two lenses you posted weren't made for canon lenses.


You have some options but you need to choose fisheye or wide angle first.
Jun 10 2013 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
b_r_tregs
Posts: 298 - Karma: 204
Oh my apologies. I was just curious of what i should go for wether it be a fishy lens or a wide angle lens.

And yes i do have canon.
Jun 11 2013 6:43AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,683
Fisheye looks dumb for most things.
Jun 12 2013 9:28AM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331

i agree, if my only wide lens was a fisheye that would be miserable. you said you have a 17-55 or whatever so really if you are looking for something a lot wider you would have to go like 10-22 range for wide angle and not fisheye.

i would only go with a fisheye if i had some money to blow and already had a UWA. my 2 cents. some things look awesome on a fisheye in certain photography but i personally would have more bennefit of a regular wide angle for a lot more uses

Jun 12 2013 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,683
I don't understand how people don't realize that 17mm is wide angle... It comes out to ~28mm. That's perfect for landscapes. I shoot the grand majority of my film landscapes at 28mm.

Going any wider is practically retarded, especially when most people have no clue how to use a UWA. If you're going wider than an effective 24mm FOV, and you don't understand how to compose a wide angle shot, then you shouldn't be spending money on another god damn lens... If you're doing indoor video, and your'e trying to capture the space, then sure, the 11-16 is fucking awesome, but by in large, unnessesary for the gran majority of photography.

Stick with your 17-50. It's fast. It covers all the right focal lengths, and it works well at the wide end for landscape. Do some distortion correction in post if you absolutely require it.




Jun 12 2013 2:31PM
1 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
i agree, i can still get pretty good images at 18mm on a crop and sometimes that's too wide for me
Jun 12 2013 2:49PM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1317 - Karma: 419
This is very, very true.

I find 17mm is wide enough 99% of the time, and I think the photos from my 17-55 set to 17mm are far more pleasing than the ones from my 11-16mm set to 16mm.

I've had some excellent shots at 11mm, but these situations are extremely rare.
Jun 13 2013 8:06AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)