pterosonus Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Robertjerl wrote: I just generally su*k at wide angle shooting.

The main reason extreme wide angle and fisheye pictures disappoint is including too much foreground which makes the object of interest insignificant and far away. Sometimes you have to get really close to your subject. Ken Rockwell wrote a good article about this. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I read Rockwell's article long ago, and others. I use my wide angles for tight spaces in the car barns at the railroad museum and similar situations. What I don't do at all well are the sweeping landscape type shots that so many people seem to love wide angles for.
Perhaps it is due to my having been born near sighted and I am just used to seeing the world in mostly smaller chunks defined by the angle of view of my glasses. I actually love the way the world looks through contacts and wore them for many years. I had to give them up because of dry eyes (side effect of a long term medication) and the chalk dust in the classroom. (try getting chalk dust under a contact for an "interesting" experience)
Now I do have a few pairs of disposable contacts my eye doctor gave me to use for special occasions, but haven't gone through the hassle of getting reconditioned to wearing them on a regular basis. It is so much easier to just pick up my glasses. And the eye surgery is out due to a combo of being 69 and diabetic with slow healing. Why chance it not working when glasses work for me.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I'm also near sighted, wear glasses, never tried contacts, gave up chalk dust decades ago and like wide sweeping landscapes. I found that I can visualize them by moving my head if I need to!

I respect your comment, but don't see why that should stop you adjusting your brain from a creative perspective. No need to adjust your eyes, the lens does it for you!....

Why not give it a try?.....

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I do every so often. I will again.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

travisdeland Loc: deland, FL

DITTO on the Canon mount, and pleased. It's a fun lens to play with. I don't use it much, but for the price, that's OK. When I do use it, I've been very happy with the results.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

I am not familiar with the 8mm. Does the lens bulge too much to attach a filter(s)? Or do you attach the filter first and then the lens? Thank you.

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

Adorama has a similar lens for $239. http://www.adorama.com/RKFE8MN.html

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

As has been mentioned these are the Korean glass under many names and Focal lengths for FF and crop. As has been mentioned many people lack the skill set to be creative with UWA and then they OFF these lenses. I have picked up three of various strips and below Pawn Pricing.

Look around you may be surprised.

I also think that much can be learned about UWA lenses and the creative nature of their prospective.

Try doing a flattering portrait using a UWA. It can be done.

J. R.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A few examples using the Samyang 8mm fisheye (barrel distortion) and Canon EF-S 10-22mm (rectilinear) for comparison..., nothing fancy but it shows the capabilities and differences....

8mm fisheye


8mm fisheye


8mm fisheye


8mm fisheye


EF-S 10-22mm


EF-S 10-22mm


EF-S 10-22mm


EF-S 10-22mm


8mm fisheye

JPL

Very good lens, I have the Nikon version. If it is fisheye or not is a matter of definition. The pics taken with it fill the frame, but have lot of distortion, but if wanted can be reduced significantly in PP. It is very wide and very easy to use. The only problem I know of so far is variation in lens assembly that was a problem some years ago. My lens was one of them, but it was not complicated to fix, did it in about 30-40 minutes if I remember it correct. I would advice you to test your example carefully to check if everything is ok when you buy or receive the lens and ask for another copy if the one you get is not sharp at all settings.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think it is very clearly a fisheye lens, although I guess there could be different definitions. The models that I have / have seen clearly say fisheye on the lens body, which is at least a clue.

The primary thing is that the lens clearly demonstrates barrel distortion (straight lines rendered as curves) as compared to being rectilinear (straight lines rendered as straight lines) in general use.

When used in landscape situations the appearance of barrel distortion of the Samyang can be minimized by keeping the horizon in the center of the frame, or of course can be adjusted for in post processing.

Although it is designed for APS-C cameras where it does provide full sensor coverage (a complete image corner to corner) the most recent models come with a removable hood which allows them to be used on full frame cameras, delivering the classic circular fisheye image.

I bought my copy (Vivitar brand) new on ebay for around $175, which I still think is incredible value. It is a permanent part of my camera grab bag goodies.

Good luck if interested in these lenses.

Pilot 6 Loc: Eugene, OR

To all that responded: Thanks for getting me straightened around. Now I have a better understanding of fisheyes and how they differ from mine!?! David at B&H confirmed that the lens I was interested in was in fact fishy, and I have placed my order for the Sigma 10-20 f3.5. Should I get anything that isn't too godawful, will probably post..............so stay tuned, or give my avatar a wide berth....at your pleasure. Many thanks to all.
Bob

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Good luck, let us know how you do!

It's a wide, wide world! :D