looking for fisheye lens for Christmas

David, you can count on your fingers the amount of times that I've used my fisheye. On the other hand, my 21mm gets a fair amount of use. I look at the fisheye as sort of a novelty, so I guess I'm not as critical. I have pics of everyone in my household with real big noses, although the dog came out the best:D
On the other hand, with careful composition you can get some real nice landscapes. At $120 brand new I love the Zenitar. My only mistake was to buy it in a K mount-should have bought it in Pentax thread. Would have been more versatile. Stu
 
Stu W said:
David, you can count on your fingers the amount of times that I've used my fisheye. On the other hand, my 21mm gets a fair amount of use. I look at the fisheye as sort of a novelty, so I guess I'm not as critical. I have pics of everyone in my household with real big noses, although the dog came out the best:D
On the other hand, with careful composition you can get some real nice landscapes. At $120 brand new I love the Zenitar. My only mistake was to buy it in a K mount-should have bought it in Pentax thread. Would have been more versatile. Stu
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples you can post?
 
David Murphy said:
The Zenitar always struck me as having hideous distortion -- that's probably why it's cheap
Click to expand...

I want the distortion in my pictures. I want the bent, unstraight lines.

The only thing I am skeptical about is the sharpness the Zenitar has when it is wide open. I do lots of indoor shots so this is impotant.

I still don't understand why there are filters built into the lens. Do the filters help with sharpness? Do they tint the picture different colors?
 
The fiilters are in there (and I think they're black & white filters and maybe a neutral density filter) because it's impossible to mount a filter over the front lens element that will cover the lens's angle of view. Better to have them built into the back of the light path and available if you want to use them (you can choose no filter at all if you want). It's a sort of "turn the dial to pick the filter you want" setup.
 
When I got my Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye lens, I didn't take it off my F-1 for about a year. I love the lens. I still use it a lot. It's a full frame fisheye, meaning the angle of view is 180 degrees only along the diagonal. (Classic fisheyes produce a circular image on the 24mm x 36mm frame.) The canon lens has builtin filters, which reside in between a pair of the lens elements, because there's no practical way to attach filters to the front. The filters include skylight, red, yellow and orange. These are selectable by a ring, similar to the aperture or focus rings. Obviously these filters are mainly useful for B&W, except for skylight.

I use my fisheye, as others have suggested, as a super wide angle as long as subjects are not too close to the lens (it focuses extremely close to the front element). It's great for landscapes, architecture, and yes, portraits. And of course you can hand hold the lens down to about a quarter of a second, due to the focal length, making it easy to use. The effects can be unsual. Any straight line intersecting the center of the lens field will be straight, but otherwise will be curved. This can be a very interesting effect.

My testimonial will be somewhat academic in your case, as the Canon lens will not adapt to any other mount system. However, I wanted to put my 2 cents in concerning fisheyes. Good luck, and enjoy your lens.
 
David Murphy said:
Filters have optical aberations and they can become significant in fast optical systems. The aberrations can be balanced out by compensating with other optical elements hence an optical system that couples filter elements to lens elements.
Click to expand...

Could someone explain to me what this means?
 
Last edited:
And also this.

veraikon said:
may be the unsharpness is caused by dejustage. (Low QC in FSU)
More information and the way how to adjust the lens here:
http://www.gelbfilter.de/rdx/index.phtml?ID=37
(unfortunatelly only in German)
and please note:
"Ein Zenitar ohne den Kompensator (sogenannter UV-Filter) oder einen Farbfilter ist nicht unscharf, sondern unvollständig. Dieses Teil ist unbedingt notwendig, wenn kein Farbfilter einschraubt ist, da die Abbildung sonst nicht auf der Filmebene erfolgen kann."
(A Zenitar without Compensator (so called UV-Filtre) is not out of focus but fragmentary..)
Click to expand...

It sounds like they were trying to say that the reason the Zenitar lens isn't very sharp is because a lack of a UV-Filter?
 
It says that a filter is necessary to allow the image to fall on the film plane correctly. Without a filter,the Zenitar will appear to be unsharp when in fact it will be incomplete.

I guess, the author of the thread seems to suggest that a filter is similar to a lens element. You must have one.
 
The Zenitar is a full frame fisheye, not a circular one. The image fills the whole frame. I think that they're trying to say that the filter must be mounted. The Zenitar comes with a UV filter and a set of B&W ones. Becasue of the design they mount on the back element. I find mine to be quite sharp. Sorry I can't post any pics-no scanner right now. I'm sure if you google it you'll find plenty of shots posted with the Zenitar. Stu
 
in my first posting were two sugestions
1.
It says that a filter is necessary to allow the image to fall on the film plane correctly
Click to expand...
Exact - use the Zentar always with filters !

2. if the the Zenitar ist even with used filters "unsharp" at f 2.8 - it may be a misadjustment of the lens. Even today there is a very low Quality Control in FSU.
Good dealers will check it before selling....- if not in the url the method is described how to fit it.
 
Ok. So what you guys are saying is that the Zenitar is a good and sharp lens, it just has to always be used with one of the filters that are built into it to complete the lens elements and give the best image quality.

If this is true, then why is it only 180 bucks?
 
The Zenitar is inexpensive, just as many Russian and Ukrainian lenses and cameras are. It's a function of the costs of materials and labor there. And yes, to some extent you do get what you pay for. But I've never heard complaints about the optics of the Zenitar.

Just to perhaps close the loop a bit on the filter discussion, I gather the Zenitar requires a filter to be in the optical path for best results -- that is, the filter is an element of the lens design. You'll find this to be the case also with some of the mirror telephoto lenses.
 
JeremyLangford said:
I am not complaining. I am making sure I know everything about this lens before I buy it and am unhappy with it.
Click to expand...

Jeremy,
I know that! It's just nice to still find inexpensive lenses being sold. :D
 
Ok. So ive come to the conclusion that the Zenitar is a good lens, just needs to be used with filters. Just want to make sure I understand it correctly.....

1) It is completely manual focus right?
2)It isn't screw mount, and it will fi my SRT-101 just like my Rokkor 50mm does right? As long as I make sure I buy one that says "Minolta Mount"?

,thanx
 
I believe (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that the basic Zenitar is in fact M42 screw mount, and the lens becomes another mount by virtue of having the proper adaptor (which should come with it). This may not be true in all cases -- you get into questions about flange to film distance that mean certain lens mounts don't work -- but this is my understanding.

Check the eBay listings for Zenitars and see what they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom