New (used) fisheye lens for my DSLRs

classic carl

Without Music, Life Would B FLAT.
Subscriber
My Nikon AF 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX Fisheye just arrived. It's a crappy day outside, so I took a coupe of photos in my listening room with my D500. Very cool lens. I can't wait to get outdoors with it.


CSN_3284_mancave.jpg
CSN_3290_main system.jpg .
 
Not quite a fisheye, but I just won a 17-35mm Sigma lens for the Sony A-mount. I have never had one this wide, and I'm heading west again for a few weeks towards the end of this month. I'll get to experiment a little with it.
 
Not quite a fisheye, but I just won a 17-35mm Sigma lens for the Sony A-mount. I have never had one this wide, and I'm heading west again for a few weeks towards the end of this month. I'll get to experiment a little with it.

Have fun. I also have a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Nikon lens, but with the DX format crop factor (1.5x), the 18-70 performs as a 27-105mm. The 10.5 fisheye distorts the edges much more than the 18mm. Does your Sony have a full frame sensor, or 2/3, like both of my Nikon bodies?
 
Have fun. I also have a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Nikon lens, but with the DX format crop factor (1.5x), the 18-70 performs as a 27-105mm. The 10.5 fisheye distorts the edges much more than the 18mm. Does your Sony have a full frame sensor, or 2/3, like both of my Nikon bodies?
Mine is the APS format sensor (2/3). With the Sony, I can't get into a full frame sensor unless I go really far up in the model lineup. Way outside my budget, although I still look at them when I start dreaming. ;)

The only drawback to the new 17-35mm is that I have to buy yet another circular polarizer, due to the 82mm thread.

My last lens purchase was a 24-105 a few months back. Prior to that, I hadn't purchased a lens since 2003 or so, when I bought a newer Maxxum film camera, and ended up getting a 28-80 and 75-300. I still have a 50mm/1.7 prime lens, plus the 28-85 with macro, and 75-300, from the old Maxxum, which are far heavier. The 75-300 was also not a Minolta lens. It may have been a Tamron.

I think it's easier for us "old timers" to use the 35mm-equivalent focal lengths. I certainly relate to it easier!
 
Mine is the APS format sensor (2/3). With the Sony, I can't get into a full frame sensor unless I go really far up in the model lineup. Way outside my budget, although I still look at them when I start dreaming. ;)

The only drawback to the new 17-35mm is that I have to buy yet another circular polarizer, due to the 82mm thread.

My last lens purchase was a 24-105 a few months back. Prior to that, I hadn't purchased a lens since 2003 or so, when I bought a newer Maxxum film camera, and ended up getting a 28-80 and 75-300. I still have a 50mm/1.7 prime lens, plus the 28-85 with macro, and 75-300, from the old Maxxum, which are far heavier. The 75-300 was also not a Minolta lens. It may have been a Tamron.

I think it's easier for us "old timers" to use the 35mm-equivalent focal lengths. I certainly relate to it easier!

I have a D500, which is the flagship of the DX line. I also have a D300 as my backup body. I bought that one 9 years ago. I shoot a lot of sports so the 2/3 sensor is my preference. I use a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (vibration reduction) as my primary sports lens. For football, baseball, and soccer, I also use a Nikon 1.7x teleconverter, which then equals 180 to 510mm with the crop factor. It reduces my f-stop from 2.8 to 4.8, but the D500 has such rediculously high ISO settings, I have no problem shooting at night under the lights at f/4.8 aperture. I've been shooting at 16,000 ISO and there is no hint of noise on the images. The ISO can be pushed to over a million. I haven't tried anywhere near that, but I would imagine that noise would appear long before then. To compare, my D300 only goes to 6400 ISO.
 
Cool lens - I just picked up a Tokina 12-24 F/4 DX ii for stupid money because the AF is bust. Who needs AF on an ultra wide ? Not me :)

I used to have a Samyang 8mm fisheye on my Sony NEX and can highly recommend those - great lens for little money.
 
My 17-35mm Sigma lens was a bust. I had all sorts of problems with it on my trip. Exposure problems galore, and some focus problems as well.

Only, I don't think the lens is faulty. After looking a little online, the Sony and later Minolta A-mount lenses used eight contacts between lens and camera body, where this Sigma only has five, like the older, original A-mount ("Maxxum") lenses. I have an old Tokina 75-300 that won't work on the Sony at all. Yet the Minolta lenses, even the 28-85mm zoom and the 50mm/1.7 that came with my original Maxxum 7000 work fine on the Sony A33.

I also had a polarizer, but that won't work well on wide angle lenses--the sky actually gets a very dark patch in it. So, scratch that idea. I ended up not using it much.

But the focal length was really nice for the landscape photography. So I'm back on the hunt. Only, a genuine Minolta lens is going to cost more than double. But if that's what it takes, I'll have to do it before I travel again.
 
Here is another photo with my fisheye lens. There is also a link below to this entire shoot on my website. The venue was a local metal sculpture artist's studio. The music was provided by Tony Grey, who is a world renowned jazz fusion bass player. Tony graduated from the Berklee College of Music, and he is also John McLaughlin's nephew.

Tony has played and recorded with many well known jazz and fusion players, including Hiromi, John McLaughlin, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Mike Stern, and Branford Marsalis, to name just a few.
Fortunately for me, Tony lives locally to me and I get to see him play live several times a year.

http://www.carlstrubphoto.com/2017/Tony-Grey-Galactic-Duo/

CSN_5772_tony grey_ak.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom