Who Still Uses a Fish-Eye Lens?

Spyderman said:
Jay, I can't believe you wrote this, because Zenitar is just sooo easy to convert to manual aperture...
Click to expand...

Ondrej, actually I've taken the Zenitar apart to fix the broken auto aperture pin. I could see some possible ways to make the aperture close as the f/stop ring is stopped down, and do away with the auto-diaphragm. BUT, those ways would also disable the auto diaphragm permanently and make its use less efficient on an SLR.

I'd be interested to hear of some compromise method which is reversible and will not disable the autodiaphragm permanently. The only one I can think of now is placing a bar on the adapter which will bear on the diaphragm stop down pin.
 
Now I understand. You're right. It would disable the auto-diaphragm also for use on SLR, so it might be not so good idea for you...
 
I do use them from time to time. But as pointed out, it can be a bit boring if you are not selective with it.

Cheers,
 
I was just about to write about converting the Zenitar to "M only", but I see that was already discussed.

I'd like to point out that 15mm Heliar is not a fisheye lens!
 
Me too.
I'm very satisfied with my Zuiko full frame fisheye 16mm f/3.5; further, the three built-in filters (ND, Y48 and O56) are really very handy and useful.
 
Last edited:
"I'd like to point out that 15mm Heliar is not a fisheye lens!"

sorry, I had no idea....my mistake....to be honest, I wasn't sure, but then I saw some other posts and they used a 15mm and a 16mm, so I assumed my 15mm vc was a fish-eye....can somebody please let me know what is a "fish-eye lens" ? thanks....
 
Fisheyes have lots of distortion- bent lines and horizons. That's why they're called fisheyes- an analogy to how fish are perceived to see, or how a fish "sees" the world from his fish-bowl. :)

Extreme wide angle lenses like the 15mm Heliar, are rectilinear. There is high correction to prevent or minimise the strong barrel distortion associated with fisheyes.

Some fisheyes cover full -frame. Others project a circular image within the film frame.

edit, add: Extreme wide-angle, non-fisheye lenses will also show some distortion. But this is from the way the lens is pointed towards the subject. When it's less than absolutely level, or when pointed down or upwards, lines in the frame will taper or recede strongly.

A fisheye OTOH, will show distortion even when perfectly lined up.
 
Last edited:
I used to use a piece of paper that I jam into the slot where the aperture pin of the Canon FD lens is located. With Canon Adapter B, the adapter takes care of this, so there is no need for me to hold the aperture diaphragm.
 
Wow, should I feel ashamed because I still use a fisheye? I have the Canon FD 15mm 2.8 full-frame version, and I love it. Granted, the effect is very distinctive. But lots of fun to experiment with. I realize some photographers have been using them for decades, notably since the 60s. I only got mine about 6 or 8 years ago. I'm not responsible for any cliches, or overuse of fisheyes in the past, though I acknowledge this fact.

It's a strange question, at least to me. Yes, I'm still using a fisheye.

Are there any guitarists still using distortion and feedback? Hendrix, Neil Young and many others already did that, right? It's been done, and therefore passe now. Right?

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Yes, I bought a "fish-eye" lens attachment with adaptors for 40.5, 49 and 52mm lenses. The results with a 50mm lens were pretty useless but with the 8.5cm or 13.5 cm were reasonably good;but back then a w/a lens was pretty expensive so $100 for an attachment wasn't too bad. I use mine occasionally but now prefer a 21 or 28 on my ltm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom