Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

8mm Fisheye Lense on a Cropped Sensor?

profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
So I am wanting a wider lense for landscape photography. I have a t4i which has a cropped sensor, so what I am wondering is how "fisheyed" does an 8mm lense look on a cropped sensor? Would it just make it look wide angle or super fishy like in skate videos?
Jun 12 2013 1:08AM
20 1
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
Get a specific fish-eye for crop sensor bodies like the Tokina 10-17mm.

As for landscape photography it's gimmicky as hell.

An ultra wide for crop sensor bodies that doesn't distort is the Sigma 10-20mm.
Jun 12 2013 1:23AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Don't use a fisheye for landscape. Use your kit lens over that shit...
Jun 12 2013 1:41AM
7 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
i'm guessing you're probably thinking of the rokinon/whatever 8mm... it'll be way too distorted. a uwa in the 10-20 or 12-24 range will be nice, i use the tokina 11-16 but i end up using my 16-85 for a lot of landscape because sometimes 16 is still a little too wide.
Jun 12 2013 1:59AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Depends on your definition of distortion.


If you want an UWA, I would suggest the Tokina 11-16, basically the only crop sensor specific lens that's truly worth the money.

Honestly, for landscapes, I find myself way more likely to shoot in the middle of the focal length range than super wide.
Jun 12 2013 2:03AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Tokina 12-24 is also very much truely worth the money... and it's only about 350ish used, which is a fucking boss deal for UWA-Wide Standard range on crop. Very little distortion, and the only real issue is that it's only f4, but you should be shooting landscapes at f8 or higher.

It's easily my favourite landscape zoom, because it covers the whole wide range. It's effectively like a 19-39mm zoom. It's fantastic.
Jun 12 2013 2:10AM
1 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Oh word, always forget about that one. If you don't need it to hit 2.8 that's definitely a better option.
Jun 12 2013 2:55AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Yeah, it's fucking kick ass. probably my next and last lens purchase for a while when I decide to go for it.
Jun 12 2013 3:00AM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 722
The Sigma 10-20mm blows. The Rokinon / Samyang 8mm Fisheye is also quite shit. You need a sharp lens for landscape photography, and these lenses aren't.

Fisheye landscape photography is possible, but it is rare to see someone kick ass at it. Here is a 'good' example of it: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/11/15/fisheyes-are-more-than-a-gimmick-by-george-sutton/

An ultra-wide is probably more suited to your task. Like everyone has said, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 if you want the f/2.8 (e.g. for low light), or the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (or even the new 12-28mm f/4) if you want the extra range, which can be very useful for landscapes.
Jun 12 2013 6:25AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I hear the 12-28 has way more distortion... but I haven't seen how it looks for myself, so meh.
Jun 12 2013 8:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
Tokina 11-16 is a good lens, but the Sigma 10-20 isn't bad either.
Just suggesting something else besides the obvious.

I've used both, Tokina is slightly sharper and does not have as much light falloff, but discerning that difference required serious pixel peeping. Tokina has a bit more flare and a tad bit more distortion also required pixel peeking.
I've seen bigger differences between the same lenses then what they produced.

Also for landscapes the extra stop doesn't matter that much. (Unless you go for night but then again it's just one stop.)

And the big-bang: the Sigma is cheap.
Jun 12 2013 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,113
I can definitely tell the difference between a shot with a tokina @11 and sigma @10 the sigma has a fuck ton of distortion and isnt not as sharp, thats not just pixel peeping either, ive got friends that shoot that lens i know how much distortion it creates. Nothing beats the tokina 11-16 for crop, yes it costs more but thats how shit works in the photo/video industry, especially with glass.
Jun 12 2013 1:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
Maybe I just came across a bad example of the Tokina and a good Sigma.
Jun 12 2013 1:50PM
1 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,113
Possibly, the sigma 10-20 works if your on a budget I just think its worth the extra money for the tokina.
Jun 12 2013 1:52PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Quite unlikely.

Regardless, if you get a killer deal on the sigma 10-20 f3.5, then go for it, but it's not going to be as good as the Tokinas.. and for my money, the 12-24 tokina is cheaper, and better overall than the SIgma 10-20. Even if it is a whole crazy half stop slower.
Jun 12 2013 1:58PM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 722
This is definitely possible. The problem with the Sigmas is usually not that they are unsharp, but that the AF is inaccurate. So you can definitely get lucky. My Sigma 30mm is sharp as fuck even though everyone says it's a soft lens.
Jun 13 2013 8:16AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The Sigma 30 is certainly sharp above f4.. but it's definitely not sharp below f2.8 if you're a pixel peeper - which if you're going to make a large print, you will be.

The sigma 10-20 is mostly bad because of Distortion, and it's not THAT much cheaper than lenses that are far better. Also, seeing as it's a 10-20, you won't really be worried about AF, since it's just going to be shot at infinity most of the time anyways.
Jun 13 2013 8:42AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Word. I don't get why people want an UWA for landscape photography. That shit looks whack. Landscapes with
Jun 13 2013 11:36AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I agree. You should only use UWA for indoor use, sports (for the same reason you'd use a fisheye), and for really trippy compositions where you basically have the camera less than a foot from the ground

or if you're trying to get a whole lot of sky or parking lot...
Jun 13 2013 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

I get where you are coming from and why people buy that lens, but a lens that offers this much distortion is not worth a dollar to me. I guess it all depends on what you care about. I want my lenses to be able to help create the image of a scene I have in mind, that image never includes severe distortion of straight lines.
Jun 16 2013 7:11PM
1 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
"Most ultra-wide lenses tested on small sensors, at the widest possible angle would produce a barrel distortion of about -2%, decreasing to less than 1% for bigger focal lengths. A glorious exception was the Sigma with just -0,88% at 10 mm, as opposed to Tamron reaching -4.0%. Unfortunately, Tokina 11-16 mm gets closer to the shameful result rather than the good one. At 11 mm, we measured a distortion of -3,24%. "

At 10mm the new Sigma indeed has quite a lot of distortion, but no more then the Tokina at 11mm appaerently:

"The new Sigma lens, sadly, reached the level of other constructions of this type and can no longer be hold up as a model for others. At 10mm focal length we recorded noticeable barrel distortion of -3.05% value. Fortunately, that’s the only bad news, as with increasing focal length the problem with this aberration is of marginal significance. At 15 mm it’s -0.34% and at 20 mm 0.30%. "
Jun 16 2013 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
simple distortion can be fixed automatically in LR, complex distortion cannot, without a bunch of time wasting.

Why would you spend the money on that lens when you can get the tokina 12-24 for the same price, without complex distortion? Or save a little more and get the 11-16? The sigma lens just isn't worth it.
Jun 17 2013 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
How does the 12-24 compare distortion wise?
Jun 17 2013 6:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
I love my 10-20. Used and beaten it up for 3 years and still works great. Produces a good material and that's all that matters. It's all personal preference.
Jun 17 2013 11:33PM
1 1
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
.qzyxyaHow does the 12-24 compare distortion wise?


Here's a visual.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-distortion.htm
Dec 9 2014 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
LukasSchroeder
Posts: 1460 - Karma: 2,683
this is what an 8mm on a t3i looks like.
don't think you'll want it for landscape.
Dec 9 2014 6:53PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)