DSLRUsers.com

Not sure if this is the best place to post.

I think I want to buy one....does anyone have one that I can borrow and play with?? I am willing to swap my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-motor version) for the duration of the loan as insurance if need be.

What are your opinions on this lens? I am interested as it can be used on FX without shaving off the lens hood from 14-17mm and still be a full frame fisheye.

Sorry Cameron I can’t help you on this only to say that it is not a fisheye

sirhc55 wrote:Sorry Cameron I can’t help you on this only to say that it is not a fisheye

Hahahahaha it isnt a 'fisheye' but it is a fisheye lens! Thanks for the BUMP!!

Bump, bump - it’s not even a fisheye LENS. To be a fisheye a lens must produce a circular image

sirhc55 wrote:Bump, bump - it’s not even a fisheye LENS. To be a fisheye a lens must produce a circular image

Does that mean the Nikon 16mm f/2.8, 10.5mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 are not fisheyes either despite sharing the uncorrected barrel distortion and 180 deg angle of view?? I thought these are classed as full frame fisheyes rather than circular fisheyes that produce a circular image with lots of black space in the surrounding frame.

Otherwise, are you thinking about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultra wide....

My apologies Cameron. I’m old school and harken back to the days of the Nikon and Sigma 8mm and the Canon 7.5. I can remember using a Nikon 6mm that gave a 220° view and was bloody heavy.

You are perfectly correct in your dissection of the modern fisheye which includes the Nikon 10.5mm.

So I stand, head bowed

sirhc55 wrote:My apologies Cameron. I’m old school and harken back to the days of the Nikon and Sigma 8mm and the Canon 7.5. I can remember using a Nikon 6mm that gave a 220° view and was bloody heavy.

You are perfectly correct in your dissection of the modern fisheye which includes the Nikon 10.5mm.

So I stand, head bowed

Wow you have used those classics, the 6mm sounds like a truly unique lens, 220 deg FOV would create a truly different picture.

So what I am looking for is a ultrawide with incredibly bad barrel distortion. I was wondering about the context of your comment.

Good thing it's classed as a fish-eye...otherwise Tokina would have had a hard time explaining why it says "FISHEYE" on the lens in bold gold writing

I can't comment on the 10-17 "fisheye" but I have the 11-16 UW lens and it's amazing. Very sharp and clear.

Aussie Dave wrote:Good thing it's classed as a fish-eye...otherwise Tokina would have had a hard time explaining why it says "FISHEYE" on the lens in bold gold writing

I can't comment on the 10-17 "fisheye" but I have the 11-16 UW lens and it's amazing. Very sharp and clear.

Yes I agree, it is not really a fisheye (since when do fisheye's zoom??) it is really a 11-16 with really bad barrel distortion and a slightly larger zoom range and slower aperture (lets forget the smaller size).

MOzzie has the 11-16 for her 400D and it kicks arse! But I am aiming for FX so I will have to give it a miss, and the funny thing is that I will probably never get that FX so my wait for the 14-24 will be in vain....

sirhc55 wrote:My apologies Cameron. I’m old school and harken back to the days of the Nikon and Sigma 8mm and the Canon 7.5. I can remember using a Nikon 6mm that gave a 220° view and was bloody heavy.

And could only be used on a body after the mirror had been raised.