raid
Dad Photographer
A few days ago I took a stroll in the historical district of Pensacola (Florida). It was one of the very few cases when I was by myself and I could do some photography.
The oldest church in Pensacola is the Old Christ Church. It is called "old" because the original congregation left Pensacola after coming here from New Orleans, and then many years later they returned and started a different Christ Church in Pensacola. The location is called Seville Square, and I take my family there nearly every weekend so that Dana and Lina ride their bikes and enjoy a swing.
I used a Canon FD 7.5mm fish-eye lens on a Canon P RF camera. I used a door spy-eye as my 180 degrees viewfinder. I also had around my neck a Contax III, and in some shots I had to crop the bottom to avoid seeing a crooked Contax!
I also drove on a narrow "Main Street" to a fish outlet called Joe Patty's. They have their own fishing fleet, which I focused on.
I forgot to dial on the lens to a no color filter while at Joe Patty's, and my color shots turned out orange. I then changed Orange to B&W with PS. That's why I have on the same roll of film both color shots and B&W ones.
The complete roll is here:http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=753129
I was wondering whether such fish-eye images are too extreme or not. Would this lens be a good option for a travel lens?
The oldest church in Pensacola is the Old Christ Church. It is called "old" because the original congregation left Pensacola after coming here from New Orleans, and then many years later they returned and started a different Christ Church in Pensacola. The location is called Seville Square, and I take my family there nearly every weekend so that Dana and Lina ride their bikes and enjoy a swing.
I used a Canon FD 7.5mm fish-eye lens on a Canon P RF camera. I used a door spy-eye as my 180 degrees viewfinder. I also had around my neck a Contax III, and in some shots I had to crop the bottom to avoid seeing a crooked Contax!
I also drove on a narrow "Main Street" to a fish outlet called Joe Patty's. They have their own fishing fleet, which I focused on.
I forgot to dial on the lens to a no color filter while at Joe Patty's, and my color shots turned out orange. I then changed Orange to B&W with PS. That's why I have on the same roll of film both color shots and B&W ones.
The complete roll is here:http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=753129
I was wondering whether such fish-eye images are too extreme or not. Would this lens be a good option for a travel lens?
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
It's a fun effect when used appropriately - and these are pretty good. I like the train & the fishing boat quite a bit. But what do I know? My new to me FD 24/2.8 is my idea of an extreme wide angle lens 
:bang:
William
:bang: William
Morca007
Matt
I like Fisheye lenses, but I also think one has to be careful not to overuse it. I wouldn't personally use it except for sports.
Bryce
Well-known
Use the thing, Raid. Sure, there are places and times the fisheye is not appropriate; use your judgement.
I like what I see so far- the shots looking straight down at the top of a fence at the bottom of the frame really drives it home.
I like what I see so far- the shots looking straight down at the top of a fence at the bottom of the frame really drives it home.
robin a
Well-known
These places look familiar.........
raid
Dad Photographer
Morca007 said:
I am thinking about using the lens for street photography. Maybe this is similar to sports photography?
raid
Dad Photographer
Bryce said:
Hi Bryce,
I realize that after a few shots with a fisheye lens, things look similar.
When I saw the effect of looking down at the fence top, I knew that the image will be interesting looking.
raid
Dad Photographer
robin a said:
Robin,
You better know downtown Pensacola!
raid
Dad Photographer
wlewisiii said:It's a fun effect when used appropriately - and these are pretty good. I like the train & the fishing boat quite a bit. But what do I know? My new to me FD 24/2.8 is my idea of an extreme wide angle lens
William
Hi William,
I used a 24mm almost exclusively for scenics with SLR cameras in the past. It is just wide enough to be wide.
Morca007
Matt
I was surprised by how much they have in common, they both depend entirely on split second framing decisions.raid said:
Revolucion Artistico
Established
I really like your shots. I agree with everything that has been said so far and would like to add that for me personally I shot a fair amount of fisheye lenses when I started shooting again several years ago and I can't help to look back on most of my shots as gimmicky. Of course the better the subject and composition the less the feeling, but still there none the less.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
raid said:
It amazes me what a difference there is between 28 & 24. Now I find myself watching ebay for a cheap FD 20 or 17 :bang: :bang: :bang:
I'll have to try out the 24 on scenics; a good thing to try, I think.William
raid
Dad Photographer
wlewisiii said:It amazes me what a difference there is between 28 & 24. Now I find myself watching ebay for a cheap FD 20 or 17 :bang: :bang: :bang:
William
William,
A few weeks ago I bought a Spiratone 21mm/2.8 FD mount lens for $35 or so.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I'll be the voice of dissent here. No offense, Raid, but I've never been able to see a single practical use for fish-eye lenses, including street and sports. It's pure gimmick.
.
No offense, Raid, but I've never been able to see a single practical use for fish-eye lenses, including street and sports. It's pure gimmick..
raid
Dad Photographer
Ray: It is refreshing to get a different opinion. Opinions we all have, and sometimes they differ.
Morca007
Matt
What about for extreme closeups while getting shots of skaters at the top of the pipe?RayPA said:I'll be the voice of dissent here.
.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
It's only gimmick if the viewer thinks it's gimmick.RayPA said:I'll be the voice of dissent here.
Think modern weddings.
Chris101
summicronia
Those are nice. You don't see much pictorial stuff being done with a full fish anymore!
back alley
IMAGES
hard to find round frames though...
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
erikhaugsby said:
That's the problem. How can it not be a gimmick?
It's an effect that attracts attention to itself. The effect overpowers the content. So, one fish-eye shot in a wedding package of a hundred is probably acceptable (I wouldn't pay for it), but it's purely about the lens, the effect, and it's ten times cheesier and noticeable than something like a star filter. I'll check out of this thread, out of respect to Raid and to keeping his thread on-topic.
.