Pictures & Videos Your pictures, photoshops, and videos.

Wideangle vs Fisheye

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:33 PM
  #1  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
Wideangle vs Fisheye

I'm hoping to order a new lens tonight. Well it's more of a filter type thing. It's between a wideangle and a fisheye lens. I love the fisheye pictures but I don't know if it would be a practical purchase, especially with it being double the prive of the wideangle. ($25 v $50).

Which would you guys go with and why? Here are the links for the two:

Wideangle:
Click Here

Fisheye:
Click Here
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:39 PM
  #2  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
Here's the truth man.

Those are both cheap pieces of crap. They will kill your image quality and do nothing really for you except kill the picture.

You would be better off saving the money and buying a real fisheye or real wide angle lens.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:41 PM
  #3  
MarcS's Avatar
The Stig
 
Joined: 05-11-05
Posts: 6,484
Likes: 1
From: New York
Originally Posted by Spectral
Here's the truth man.

Those are both cheap pieces of crap. They will kill your image quality and do nothing really for you except kill the picture.

You would be better off saving the money and buying a real fisheye or real wide angle lens.
Truth.


Buy a real lens, those are no good.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:42 PM
  #4  
cereal83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-20-08
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
Those are not lens. They are attachments you add to an existing lens. As for wide angle vs fish eye, I would go wide angle because i love doing portrait shots.

A Real decent wideangle like a Canon 10-20 is about $800 Can or $500 US and a decent fisheye is like 900 Can or 550 US
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:43 PM
  #5  
NOvelociti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-28-08
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
From: Center Harbor, New Hampshire
Cheap crap right there.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:49 PM
  #6  
Kodatech's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 08-18-08
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: 10-76
I wouldn't do it. Im not really into fisheye shots though, and most lens attachments (like THOSE...not filters) tend to make a slow lens even slower.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 09:51 PM
  #7  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
I do realize they are not the greatest and not real lenses. But I don't have $500 to drop on a lens or I would have a zoom lens. I'd rather buy car parts. My friend also got a wide angle for xmas and his pictures turned out awesome without losing picture quality (or he did but barely and I didn't notice it).

So assuming they aren't THAT terrible, which would you rather go with?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:02 PM
  #8  
cereal83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-20-08
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
I would rather use a point and shoot camera over one of those converters or not even get into photography at all. If you don't have the money or rather spend it elsewhere, then don't even get into it and spend ur time on money or cars
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:03 PM
  #9  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
if you REALLY want to choose between the 2 wideangle is more usable than fisheye for the majority of pictures.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:08 PM
  #10  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
Originally Posted by Spectral
if you REALLY want to choose between the 2 wideangle is more usable than fisheye for the majority of pictures.
Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. I have a D40. I want to take decent pictures, better than a point and shoot, but I don't have the money to get top of the line everything. I'm a freshman in college and have noooo money.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:14 PM
  #11  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
You can pick up an 18-135 wide angle lens which i have for all my pictures for 200-250 used.

And it will blow that crap your about to buy out of the water.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:14 PM
  #12  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
I'm about to drop 200 on a custom exhaust lmao. I have 300 in the bank.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:24 PM
  #13  
cereal83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-20-08
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Spectral
You can pick up an 18-135 wide angle lens which i have for all my pictures for 200-250 used.

And it will blow that crap your about to buy out of the water.
A 18-135 is not a wide angle lens. A 10-20, 11-20, 12-24 are wideangle. Only on a full frame would 18 be wideangle but if he only had 300 in the bank and is only spending $200 on a exhuast, I don't think he has the funds for a $2000 camera
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:24 PM
  #14  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
200 on exhaust on a car that it will give you minimal gains.

buy a fairly decent lens that will get you better pictures.

18-135 is a great lens if you don't want to get super into photog but you want decent pictures.

Its what ive used for almost a year now.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:25 PM
  #15  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
200 on exhaust on a car that it will give you minimal gains.

buy a fairly decent lens that will get you better pictures.

18-135 is a great lens if you don't want to get super into photog but you want decent pictures.

Its what ive used for almost a year now.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:28 PM
  #16  
cereal83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-20-08
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Spectral
You can pick up an 18-135 wide angle lens which i have for all my pictures for 200-250 used.

And it will blow that crap your about to buy out of the water.
A 18-135 is not a wide angle lens. A 10-20, 11-20, 12-24 are wide angle. Only on a full frame would 18 be wide angle but if he only had 300 in the bank and is only spending $200 on a exhaust, I don't think he has the funds for a $2000 camera
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:31 PM
  #17  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
18 is plenty wide enough on a crop body especially the D40. Ive used it for months.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:34 PM
  #18  
cereal83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-20-08
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
Yeah I guess wide angle is wider then 50mm. Ok 18 is not ultra wide or not near enough wide for me with a 1.6 crop sensor!
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:43 PM
  #19  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
Its not a super wide deff. But it is a wide angle and its decent for shooting cars.

10-22 is really the best way to go if you want a good wiiiiide angle on the 1.6 crop.

Im going to go with the 17-40 f/4L when i get my 40D tho.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:46 PM
  #20  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
Well for shooting cars, wouldn't a fisheye look decent too?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:50 PM
  #21  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
Fisheye's are good for interior shots....Fisheyes round the pictures and crap which makes for a cool effect but it distorts the lines on the cars.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:50 PM
  #22  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by BigTizzle903
I do realize they are not the greatest and not real lenses. But I don't have $500 to drop on a lens or I would have a zoom lens. I'd rather buy car parts. My friend also got a wide angle for xmas and his pictures turned out awesome without losing picture quality (or he did but barely and I didn't notice it).

So assuming they aren't THAT terrible, which would you rather go with?
here's the thing... you may not notice now... but as your eye gets better trained, you will pick up certain things. like how majority of amatuer photographers don't know how to get their colors correctly.. or even basics like properly framing a shot. these are all things that come with time. but don't cheap out.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:55 PM
  #23  
Spectral's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-30-06
Posts: 11,850
Likes: 0
From: Federal Way, Washington
Originally Posted by D4u2s0t
here's the thing... you may not notice now... but as your eye gets better trained, you will pick up certain things. like how majority of amatuer photographers don't know how to get their colors correctly.. or even basics like properly framing a shot. these are all things that come with time. but don't cheap out.
QFT!!!
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 10:57 PM
  #24  
BigTizzle903's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-28-07
Posts: 3,186
Likes: 0
From: Middletown, NY
Originally Posted by D4u2s0t
here's the thing... you may not notice now... but as your eye gets better trained, you will pick up certain things. like how majority of amatuer photographers don't know how to get their colors correctly.. or even basics like properly framing a shot. these are all things that come with time. but don't cheap out.
Alright, well for now this is a solution to what I'm looking for. Gimme a minute and I'll post up pictures from my friends camera, I'll give before the lens and with the lens. For those that know photography, tell me what's wrong with the pictures because I don't see too much?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2009 | 11:00 PM
  #25  
KillerBee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-23-07
Posts: 14,118
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
Anythign that cheap for a D60 i would never consider it. I have a D60 and the lens are really expensive.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 AM.