BirdWoman 0 #1 October 10, 2007 I'm thinking about getting a wide angle or fisheye lens for my degital rebel xt. I primarily shoot tandem vids and the stock lens I'm using (EFS 18-35, set all the way down to 18) just isn't wide enough for those super close shots. I was looking at the 10-22 but don't know if I'd just be better off getting a fisheye. Any suggestions?"I don't know where it is that I'm going, but wherever it is there I'll be!" --quoted by me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shunkka 0 #2 October 10, 2007 i`ll go with 15mm FISHEYE from canon if the 10-22(it`s actualy the 10-20 from sigma this one is much heavier (465g and the canon 300) than the one from canon the 15 is more than enough for normal tandem shots (even close shots... docked on the pasanger or instructor) ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #3 October 10, 2007 If you need wider then the 18-35 then look at the Sigma 15. If thats not wide enough you need to look at the Canon 10-22. Most the "fish eye" lenses are cheap pieces of glass that are full of imperfections and tend to produce lower quality photos.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #4 October 10, 2007 fist of all I have to say I dont have experience yet with either one. Howerver I was just asking help to a same kinda situation here (see thread) You can compare some sample pictures there and decide if the 15mm would be wide enough.. For the record, I decided to go with the 10-20 sigma because: -it has got fairly good reviews (very sharp) -its more versatile due to the zoom (it also can be zoomed @15mm) .I think 15mm is not going to be wide enough for some shots Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BirdWoman 0 #5 October 11, 2007 Thanks for all the info. I think I've made up my mind based on what everybody said in that other thread. You rock... "I don't know where it is that I'm going, but wherever it is there I'll be!" --quoted by me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #6 October 11, 2007 QuoteI'm thinking about getting a wide angle or fisheye lens for my degital rebel xt. I primarily shoot tandem vids and the stock lens I'm using (EFS 18-35, set all the way down to 18) just isn't wide enough for those super close shots. I was looking at the 10-22 but don't know if I'd just be better off getting a fisheye. Any suggestions? I know BMFin already answered but I am posting for the pleasure of Dragon2. If you read my signature line you'll find your answer.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
namgrunt 0 #7 October 11, 2007 fisheye=style/taste some consider the fish eye look to be distortion outhers do not you either like the look or not SIGMA 10-22 set to 10 is cost effective and very sharp thats my 2 cents worth .59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #8 October 11, 2007 QuoteSIGMA 10-22 set to 10 is cost effective and very sharp Every few days somebody on here refers to the Sigma 10-22 or Canon 10-20. NEITHER EXIST. The Canon 10-22 is not fisheye, in fact it has virtually no distortion throughout the entire zoom range (almost unprecedented for an ultra wide zoom). The reason they can pull this off is because of the focal length multiplier and inherent cropping.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BirdWoman 0 #9 October 11, 2007 You said the canon 10-22 doesn't exist? If this is true, then why did I find it directly on the CanonUSA website??? It DOES exist but it IS NOT considered as a fisheye lens; it is a wide angle lens. I don't know about the Sigma though."I don't know where it is that I'm going, but wherever it is there I'll be!" --quoted by me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #10 October 11, 2007 QuoteYou said the canon 10-22 doesn't exist? Please read my post. I said the Canon 10-20 does not exist. I own the Canon 10-22. Quoteit IS NOT considered as a fisheye lens; it is a wide angle lens. Exactly what I said.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #11 October 11, 2007 Quote You said the canon 10-22 doesn't exist? If this is true, then why did I find it directly on the CanonUSA website??? It DOES exist but it IS NOT considered as a fisheye lens; it is a wide angle lens. I don't know about the Sigma though. y'all are arguing over 2 millimeters... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PharmerPhil 0 #12 October 11, 2007 Quotefisheye=style/taste some consider the fish eye look to be distortion outhers do not you either like the look or not Fisheye IS a form of distortion. Plain and simple. But all lenses introduce distortion. They wider the lens, the more you are trying to take a flat picture of a curved subject (i.e. part of a sphere). Something has to give, and it gives in the form of distortion. So called Ayspherical (sp?) lenses distort along the diagonals so it is often* not noticable (horizons and walls are straight, and items on the edges look more in scale). Fisheye lenses (which are easier/cheaper to make) distort in a way that makes straight lines not so straight (unless they are in the very middle of a horizontal or vertical axis). IMHO, a little fisheye isn't too bad if you are looking up or down down on skydivers like in many RW jumps. But I find it pretty obnoxious when it is extreme or if a horizontal element is introduced. It's kinda like turning your reverb up to ten on every song. *However, if you ever take an ayspherical lens and look at something round that is positioned in one of the corners, you can quickly see that the object is distorted along the diagonal lines. This is particulalry noticable on people's heads, where it looks like they have an abnormal growth in the direction of the outside corner of the image. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #13 October 11, 2007 Quote This is particulalry noticable on people's heads, where it looks like they have an abnormal growth in the direction of the outside corner of the image. I took a pic with my tripod of me and my girlfriend sitting in front of a waterfall (Canon 10-22mm at widest setting), and my lower legs are in one corner of the shot and they look about two times longer that they should be. And if you're turning your reverb up to 10, you're doing it wrong. This one goes to 11.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #14 October 11, 2007 This is my own "abnormal growth"... actually this was taken witha Sigma 15mm fish eye so the distortion is even more. The second image was taken with the same lens too only from 8-10 inches but she's lot hotter than myself... -Laszlo- ps. You guys more than welcome to scare kids during the Helloween season with my "abnormal growth" image Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #15 October 11, 2007 Did you mess with the color of your eye in that image? Looks like you turned it up to 11. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #16 October 11, 2007 Of course I did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
namgrunt 0 #17 October 11, 2007 MY BAD its a SIGMA 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC but then what is 2mm anywayI have 1 and it is very sharp . 59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #18 October 12, 2007 Quote y'all are arguing over 2 millimeters... Its not the 2mm (wich actually does make a difference with such a wide lens), but when referring to a Sigma 10-22 you cant tell wich lens the person actually refers to. Is it the 10-22 (by canon) or is it the 10-20 (by sigma) Those two lenses are not different just by the 2mm difference in focal length but also in numeros other ways.. back to the topic: if you like the fisheye effect, tokina 10-17mm might be worth checking out.. Though I have no experience on the lens what so ever.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
