DSLRUsers.com

How long is a piece of string? dunno, but holy crap, Camerons Tokina 10-17 fishy is soooo wide it can even fit the whole of me in (those who have met me will get that )!

Big thanks for Cam for the lend of this lens, its awesome to be able to try something like this before thinking about getting an UW. I am definitley in the market for something wide like this.

WOW...love the first image there Gerry. Looks like the lens was worth the lend!! Did you find problems with exposure? In my short ownership of the Fisheye I find that there is a tendency to overexpose if you shoot to the meter.

Did you find problems with exposure?

yeah heaps, I really found it overexposed everytime, but once i worked that out I just compensated in M mode or dialed in some exposure adjustment -1.0 from memory.

Gerry...first pic is a stunner!

biggerry wrote:

Did you find problems with exposure?

yeah heaps, I really found it overexposed everytime, but once i worked that out I just compensated in M mode or dialed in some exposure adjustment -1.0 from memory.

Glad to hear that I am not the only one!

The first one is cracker! Gerry, how are you lighting the interior of the plane? Bounced flash?

I have always wondered. How is that a fisheye lens at 17mm includes more area than a normal 17mm lens? Does the length mean anything when it's being applied to the fisheye?

surenj wrote:The first one is cracker! Gerry, how are you lighting the interior of the plane? Bounced flash?

I have always wondered. How is that a fisheye lens at 17mm includes more area than a normal 17mm lens? Does the length mean anything when it's being applied to the fisheye?

Fisheye lenses have a very different projection formula...hence at 10mm the Tokina has a 180 deg field of view (diagonal from memory) but the at 10mm a wide angle lens has a field of view of ONLY 102.4 deg (Sigma 10-22). The same goes for the 17mm 100 deg (Tokina 10-17) compared to 78.75 deg (Tamron 17-50mm 74 deg 45 min for those who want a direct quote).

So I guess you can still say that the rule of shorter focal lengths being wider remains true but the actual field of view is very different due to the different projection formula (can someone confirm my logic regarding projection formula's please)

This is cool Gerry,
I also like the first. The last is also a good example of fish eye at work/play.

Gerry

Like the others if think #1 is the star. It looks less distorted and is extremely well exposed.

Agree with the others on #1. Both it, and the second shot here are great examples of where a lens such as this are invaluable. Nicely done

The first one is cracker! Gerry, how are you lighting the interior of the plane? Bounced flash?

completely missed this suren, sorry mate, there was no flash or light painting. Basically the cockpit was lit with the standard lighting for night VFR or IFR, this is basically some post lights, instrument lights etc. The external lighting is from a dirty great big flood light on the centreline of the aircraft which you can see the resulting white light on the seat backs.

FYI, this was a HDR image

Agree with the others on #1. Both it, and the second shot here are great examples of where a lens such as this are invaluable. Nicely done

yeah and that sucks...now i gotta work out how i am gonna get one of these bad boys...


Thanks for the comments...

aim54x wrote:Fisheye lenses have a very different projection formula

Cameron, I think I maybe starting to understand. hmm.. Have to do a bit more reading on this when I have the time and patience.

biggerry wrote:completely missed this suren, sorry mate

Hey no Problemo! thanks for the info. Very subtle HDR indeed. Now that you point it out, I think the beige seats are acting as a fill for the front panels. [not as outrageous as DH who used a goat as a fill reflector ]