The point is there is no crazy weird fisheye effect why used on these
cameras.
Amita Guha wrote:
What's your point?
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: enabled twice over
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
Peter J. Alling wrote:
My biggest objection is that it makes a very
expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly
designed lens.
I suppose it's just a matter of personal taste, although I did mention that
I'm planning on using it on film bodies as well. And speaking of
Amita,
The pictures are just fantastic.
Now, there're people who tolerate barrel (fisheye) distortion and
those who don't.
If you are OK with it -- just enjoy it. My wife actually preffers the
look of fisheye to
15mm rectilinear lense. So do I. This is just a matter of taste.
Check out some
of
What's your point?
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: enabled twice over!
The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital
cameras that produce
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]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: enabled twice over
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
It depends on your goal, but all-in-all you'll find that the cropped center
of an FE can't compete with a good rectilinear lens. Looking through the
gallery on Pbase, the digital shots are mildly distorted, enough to suggest
a bad lens rather than a fish-eye effect.
In my initial query to Amita
would the fisheye be as extreme as on film?-
Original Message -
From: Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: enabled twice over!
It depends on your goal, but all-in-all you'll find
On 2 Dec 2004 at 11:50, Mark Stringer wrote:
I asked about using an A-16mm and Peter Ailing wrote and I tended to agree:
I have no experience with this lens on the *ist-d but the 17mm fisheye shows
enough distortion to look like a 24mm lens with extremely bad barrel
distortion.
It's
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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),
No no no, those photos
My new FA 50mm f/1.4 arrived in the mail yesterday. Woohoo! I took it for a
spin around Rockefeller Center today for some test shots. So far, I'm very
pleased.
Also, last night, while surfing, I discovered the existence of the Sigma
15mm f/2.8 fisheye. After reading reviews and seeing a bunch of
Pentax A 16/2.8 usually goes for similar $:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688item=3855394220rd=1
mine was from KEH LN-, for something pretty close to that too (a while ago).
I hope you enjoy the really wide angle -- I know I do, and the distortion
very rarely bothers me.
PROTECTED]
Subject: enabled twice over!
My new FA 50mm f/1.4 arrived in the mail yesterday. Woohoo! I
took it for a
spin around Rockefeller Center today for some test shots. So far, I'm very
pleased.
Also, last night, while surfing, I discovered the existence of the Sigma
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
Pentax A 16/2.8 usually goes for similar $:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688it
em=3855394220rd=1
mine was from KEH LN-, for something pretty close to that too
(a while ago).
Looks like it's in great condition, too.
I hope you enjoy the really wide angle -- I
Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and
would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the
crazy/weird effect.
Tim
On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote:
Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The
photos I saw
Here you go!
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex
There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
-Original Message-
From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM
To: Pentax Discussion List
Subject: Re: enabled twice over!
Amita
On 1/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm truly glad I don't live near a place like B+H.
I'd be living in a cardboard box under a bridge and
eating rocks
I'd be mining the rocks :-(
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
fisheye.
Amita Guha wrote:
Here you go!
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex
There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
-Original Message-
From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM
To: Pentax Discussion List
Subject: Re: enabled twice over
19 matches
Mail list logo
