friis 0 #1 November 7, 2003 I would like to know if anyone knows this lens: Russian Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye There is a review on this page http://www.grantheffernan.com/misc/zenitar/zenitar.html It's only 150$! Does anybody have skydiving experience with this lens?------------------------------------------------ Benjamin - Denmark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #2 November 7, 2003 I get guff sometimes from people about my high-end equipment tastes. I honestly believe it saves me money in the long run. I am saving for the Sigma 14. I have seen it in action, I've handled it, I know it does what I want to do from looking at JP Furnari's and Pete Galli's pictures, and they use it for skydiving on the same camera I have. So, I generally discourage people from getting "starter" anything. If you are ever blessed with jumping with some of the greats and they choose to share a technique with you, you won't want to be hobbled by a piece of equipment that won't do it. Like using fill-flash, autofocus, and aperature priority to get a really cool picture of B-Squared . My suggestion is to save the $150 and keep saving. The best value is the Sigma 15 fisheye. I'm choosing to keep saving right past that to the aspherical 14 Sigma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ParaShoot 0 #3 November 7, 2003 Fully agree with not choosing for "starter" equipment. The first camera normally decides the rest of your camera career. You'll stay with that brand. If you really had saved your money you would have bought a Nikon and the original Nikon 16mm fisheye or now the 10,5 for the digital cameras. A bit cheaper with inherent quality is a Canon which is also a reasonable option. The only disadvantages of the good cameras is that they're heavy but the pictures speak for themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wags 0 #4 November 7, 2003 QuoteLike using fill-flash, autofocus, and aperature priority to get a really cool picture of B-Squared . I don't want to change the direction of this post, but what do you have against fill-flash, and aperature priority? Some of the best videographers in the world use these. Blue Skies, Wags Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #5 November 7, 2003 Quite the opposite. If you want to take a skydiving picture in that mode, the Zenitar will not accomodate you. I love trying new methods, that's why I am suggesting to the original poster that he save his money and buy a lens that will take advantage of the possibilities that the camera creates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wags 0 #6 November 7, 2003 OK, my bad, I read your post wrong. Blue Skies, Wags Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #7 November 8, 2003 I would not even think about mounting a junk lens to a good camera body . I believe in buying the very best glass you can afford from the start . There is nothing more discouraging than having every photo come out as crap because of an unseen flaw in a lens . I have seen promising photographers hang up the camera because they bought "starter" junk and they thought they had no talent . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theskydiveguy 0 #8 November 9, 2003 Hey, I have a zenitar fisheye that takes some good pictures. Alternative to these guys, I must have to budget for other stuff??!!?? The pictures it has taken have been published in magazines and brochures so it must take a good enough picture to make me some money. I dont have any idea how it handles in freefall as I only jump with a video camera. For $200 give it a shot, you won't be using it all the time anyway! If you dont like it, sell it for $10 bucks less on Ebay. My 2 cents. ~Jeff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #9 November 9, 2003 Jeff, I just think it's a little weird to have 1500 bucks for a 10D body, but not have the money to put a OEM spec lens on it. If we're talking about a starving skydiver who inhereted a 10D body, and needs any kind of lens to start generating photos, I guess the Z lens would make some kind of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
friis 0 #10 November 10, 2003 Thanx for all the advice. BTW, Im buying a 200D Camera with a 18-55 mm lens for 810$, not a 10D house for 1500$------------------------------------------------ Benjamin - Denmark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uros678 0 #11 November 10, 2003 I don't know if that helps but my Father owned a Zenit lens and Zenit still camera for the past ...well all of his life (he went digital last year)..it was the first still camera he bought..and he used it a lot..it went to the sea in the mountains 5000+meters, on familiy reuinons..the still are excelent..I know I've seen them... Don't know though if this is the same firm since you spelled Zenitar..but russians do make or have made some find tech-mech stuff in the past... Thought you ought too know... Best regards Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #12 November 10, 2003 Still haven't jumped my D300 for various reasons, but so far, on the ground, I am not liking the kit lens!! First pics I took were with flash, inside, of dogs and of a party. Excellent! Then I took my camera outside for the sunset load. Took about 15 pics of people landing, of which none turned out the way I wantend. All of them way too dark, too long a shutter time so a lot of them moving, and 2 so dark they were almost silhouettes against the sunset sky. Nice but not what I asked for Then last weekend I shot a couple of pics of swoopers during the day. No good either. What the *%^ is this?!? Is it the camera or is it the lens??? So I switched lenses to my old 35-105 mm zoom and took pics of the swooping contest we had this weekend. Much better!! Not all were great, I suppose spot-metering would have worked better for a couple shots. But I feel al lot better again Although I presume this lens isn't going to work very well in freefall FYI I used the following mdes to try stuff out: P, portrait and shutter-priority. And used both manual and autofocus for the swoops, auto for the rest. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #13 November 10, 2003 Honestly, I do not think the problems are with the lens. It is a F3.5-5.6 with great optics. You may want to look firstly at the ISO you were taking pictures at. If it was ISO 100 at sunset you would need flash, and not the little one that came on top of the camera. You may want to jack the ISO up to 400 or 800. Use manual, and use the metering system in the camera. That lens though is not exactly a 2.8 lens but it should be fine. Also think about investing in a 550EX for those sunset shots. The fill flash is good for about 3 ft (sarcasm) but not much more. Great camera though. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #14 November 10, 2003 Iso was set at 100 actually, still is. Huh, how did that happen.... Didn't check it But still, the pics with my old zoom (which is 3.5-4.5) were great, also at sunset (we're not talking real dark here). I actually do have a flash but I rarely use it. I tend to use it for avoiding red-eye mostly, and for these-need-to-be-real-good portraits etc. I've never seen anyone use a flash for skydivers before, I'd be afraid the flashlight would distract them? And anyway, I don't suppose it'd reach, except if I made arrangements beforehand to make sure they land where I want them to and not 50 m away... BTW I was pleasantly surprised with this flash. So far, almost no red eyes to be seen, it comes up so far. And it seems to be more light then my D30 and 50E (my IX7 had a really annoyingly bright flash! didn't work real good tho), also according to people who butted in and got the flash full in the face heh heh. Didn't check the numbers tho. But yeah, I know, it's sorta crap... ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jalisco 0 #15 November 10, 2003 Hmmm... f5.6 is two stops more than f2.8 -- so if it were zoomed, that would be only 1/4 as much light, or, if you like, 1/4 of the shutter-speed for the same exposure. Even at f3.5 it's 2/3 stop more than the f2.8, which allows you about .63 (less than 2/3) of the shutter speed for the same exposure. Every stop you lop off lets you double your shutter speed, or shoot in half the light. Go for the fast prime lenses.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #16 November 10, 2003 Remember one of the benefits to having a digital camera is that you can change ISO speed for every shot if you wanted. It helps. Sunset at ISO 100 is still tricky. Many skydiving photographers use flash, I definately wouldn't be afraid to. In fact consider using flash dusring the day also, help liven up harsh daytime shadows. Try ta be as close as you can to the landers, in fact if you are going to shoot them tell the plane load befroehand and then they will all shoot accuracy on you. -Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #17 November 10, 2003 They shoot accuracy on me anyway I tend to stand around the landing spot a lot Got knocked over once tho.... The pic just before I got hit made it into our national magazine tho heh heh. And had a hairclip thingie knocked out of my hair once So, I'm not afraid, and most jumpers know me. If I'm standing there and I don't shoot them they get mad I'll try the flash thing some time tho, see if it works for me. Some shots from this weekend, with the iso 100 thing (1037 is with the kit lens): ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
