Sigma 15mm f2.8 Fisheye - First Impressions

[rocketman122]

to each his own, but those are heavily processed images. I think if a photog cant photograph without heavy PS work he is not a good photographer. its harsh to say but thats very fake. no respect for a person who does heavy PP. its to compensate for not being a good photographer by making your picture stand out with heavily saturated pictures and HDR. a little tweaking is fine. color contrast cropping whatever but adding skies and making things look like plastic/ceramic and postcards..that is no talent. KISS is what im all about. I am a master in PS but I never feel the need to do 20 minutes of PP for a picture. if the person whos the kind that says "wait till I get it into PS" he is not a good photographer.

 

[wud]

Eh okay. I do heavy PP for some images, others not. But dont look at the processing in the link, its what the lens captures I am interested at.

 

[rocketman122]

Eh okay. I do heavy PP for some images, others not. But dont look at the processing in the link, its what the lens captures I am interested at.

if thats the lens that was used to create those images then its the same I have. its a great lens. if you need a fisheye on a budget then get it. get the one with the chip. it will save u a huge headache.

all those heavily saturated photos were not like that in real life. But I understand that photography is about expressing ones self and everyone sees things differently. I believe in the composition/glass/camera/exposure, not LR/PS/plugins. I think there is a place for everything in photography, but when theres so much PP its not about photography. my rule is KISS. maybe a stupid example but, in japanese cooking they use spices to bring out the natural flavor in the main ingredient of the dish. in indian dishes its the spices thats the main feature of the dish. I believe in having a nice quality piece of fish or poultry and using ingredients to bring out the natural flavor in them. its also the same with italian cooking. its very simple. back to basics kinda of thinking. much different than indian cooking. just a different way of thinking.

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Fishe...F8&qid=1387441584&sr=8-4&keywords=rokinon+8mm

make sure it has the contacts for the metering-see the mount picture here.

http://fisheyecanons.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/rokinon-8mm-ultra-wide-f35-fisheye-lens.html

 

[rocketman122]

a lot of photographer lack basic skills but they PS to compensate. like in weddings. theyre are tons of mediocre photographers who take jobs and they have very little talent. they go in, take thousands of pics and then PS heavily and can produce a decent album and the BG dont know any better. sure I started in their place but it was a long time till I felt I was good enough to take that responsibility on my shoulders. till then I learned from the best.

 

[wud]

if thats the lens that was used to create those images then its the same I have. its a great lens. if you need a fisheye on a budget then get it. get the one with the chip. it will save u a huge headache.

all those heavily saturated photos were not like that in real life. But I understand that photography is about expressing ones self and everyone sees things differently. I believe in the composition/glass/camera/exposure, not LR/PS/plugins. I think there is a place for everything in photography, but when theres so much PP its not about photography. my rule is KISS. maybe a stupid example but, in japanese cooking they use spices to bring out the natural flavor in the main ingredient of the dish. in indian dishes its the spices thats the main feature of the dish. I believe in having a nice quality piece of fish or poultry and using ingredients to bring out the natural flavor in them. its also the same with italian cooking. its very simple. back to basics kinda of thinking. much different than indian cooking. just a different way of thinking.

Amazon.com: Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide F/3.5 Fisheye Lens with Auto Aperture and Auto Exposure Chip for Nikon AE8M-N: ROKINON: Camera & Photo

make sure it has the contacts for the metering-see the mount picture here.

fisheye canon: Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide F/3.5 Fisheye Lens with Auto Aperture and Auto Exposure Chip AE8M-N

Okay, thank you both for advice. I see your points.


About PP or not, well, its all about what you wanna get to at the end. Some makes so much PP its almost a brand new digital paiting, I dont see why I shouldn't be amazed in that as a talent.

 

[BackdoorArts]

to each his own, but those are heavily processed images. I think if a photog cant photograph without heavy PS work he is not a good photographer. its harsh to say but thats very fake. no respect for a person who does heavy PP. its to compensate for not being a good photographer by making your picture stand out with heavily saturated pictures and HDR. a little tweaking is fine. color contrast cropping whatever but adding skies and making things look like plastic/ceramic and postcards..that is no talent. KISS is what im all about. I am a master in PS but I never feel the need to do 20 minutes of PP for a picture. if the person whos the kind that says "wait till I get it into PS" he is not a good photographer.

I patently disagree with the blanket categorizing of every photographer that spends significant time in post as being "not good". I could pull a ton of examples from well known photographers to folks on this page refuting the statement, but I really don't want to hijack my own thread (take a look at the work of Harold Ross that I mention in another thread for a perfect example). But with that said, I do agree that a lot of photographers will over-process in an effort to make something out of nothing - been there, done that. A good photographer starts with a good photograph, regardless of how long they spend in post. A great photographer knows what to tweak, what not to tweak, and most importantly when to stop.

 

[480sparky]

to each his own, but those are heavily processed images. I think if a photog cant photograph without heavy PS work he is not a good photographer. its harsh to say but thats very fake. no respect for a person who does heavy PP. its to compensate for not being a good photographer by making your picture stand out with heavily saturated pictures and HDR. a little tweaking is fine. color contrast cropping whatever but adding skies and making things look like plastic/ceramic and postcards..that is no talent. KISS is what im all about. I am a master in PS but I never feel the need to do 20 minutes of PP for a picture. if the person whos the kind that says "wait till I get it into PS" he is not a good photographer.

Time is not relevant.

So you brag how quick and efficient you are in post. That speed and efficiency is not what makes one an good photographer.

Remember the first time YOU used PP software? Were YOU intimately familiar with every button, slider and drop-down? How long did it take YOU to edit that first shot so it was as you wished?

It matters not how long a person spends pushing and clicking a mouse. Same for conceptualizing the image..... same for setting up your gear....

 

[rocketman122]

I edit every image I shoot. but how much is something else. I knew pp way before I worked as a photog

 

[rocketman122]

Time is not relevant.

So you brag how quick and efficient you are in post. That speed and efficiency is not what makes one an good photographer.

Remember the first time YOU used PP software? Were YOU intimately familiar with every button, slider and drop-down? How long did it take YOU to edit that first shot so it was as you wished?

It matters not how long a person spends pushing and clicking a mouse. Same for conceptualizing the image..... same for setting up your gear....

what do you mean quick exactly? I dont edit quick or efficient. Im saying I edit minimally. I didnt say anything about speed. I dont spend 20 minutes per photo because I dont think its necessary to edit pics so much. for me its more about the photography than the PP. PP is just to balance things out the camera didnt get right. like WB contrast etc flash/ambient balance. basic stuff. and I am very proficient in PS. but no need to use tons of effects to make a nice photo. dont get so defensive. if you like it, then fine. If you told me my pictures were boring because it didnt have the saturation slider to 100 then I wouldnt get offended. its your opinion.

I think people seem to have forgotten about the photography part. today everyone is machine gunning the shutter and choosing 1 out of 20 pics. when I was shooting film I had to make it count. I had to be accurate and it used all of me to get the proper shot. today its shoot as much as possible and then deal with it later. PP is not a skill. using tons of plugins is no skill.

 

[480sparky]

what do you mean quick exactly?............

That's my point. Who cares how long someone spends working an image in post? If the target is reached (target being the image as desired), the time it took is not relevant, whether it took 20 seconds or 20 minutes.

If one of us takes twice as long to edit the exact same image to create the exact same result, why should everyone else care who's faster?

 

[BackdoorArts]

OK, guys, let's take this elsewhere before mods shut this down. I'd like to keep the fisheye train on the tracks, OK?!

 

[hark]

I've enjoyed seeing all of these images as well as how the effects of post processing can alter them. It's kind of a tutorial showing the process of changing from the fish eye view to a view without the rounded perspective. The results of this lens are amazing as are the results of altering its view in post.

Having tried out changing the perspective in a couple of my photos, I've found it can be quite a tedious process. You've done a fantastic job with these, Jake!

 

[BackdoorArts]

OK, here's a very quick and dirty comparison of field of view between the Sigma 15mm full frame fisheye and the Rokinon/Samyang 8mm DX fish. All are straight out of the camera with no post processing corrections, only resizing for uploading.

Sigma 15mm on a D600, f/9




Rokinon 8mm on a D600, f/9, DX mode




Rokinon 8mm on a D600, f/9, FX mode




File size on the DX crop is about 1/2 of the full frame shot. As you can see, the 8mm will give you a slightly wider field of view, around 12mm in the DX crop, and you can squeak out a little more if you crop on your own and shoot in FX, and even more if you leave in the black corners and do some content aware fill in Photoshop. That said, you're getting only about 44% of the resolution of the full frame shot (~10.5MP's with the D600, less than 5.5MP's on the D3).

 

[BackdoorArts]

Here are a couple taken today of Port Colden United Methodist Church in Port Colden, NJ. Both had lens profile correction applied in post, the latter also had perspective correction applied. Shot with the D600 and then processing using Nik Viveza 2 and Color Efex Pro 4 (Color Contrast, Reflector and Vignette, both Lens & Blur, filters applied). Click on the photo for full size.

Several people have PM'd me about this lens, so for the curious I've uploaded an out-of-camera, untouched, full-res JPEG of the first shot that can be downloaded here if you're curious as to what things look like out of the camera. There can be some significant CA on the edges of this lens, but they clean up very easily in Lightroom.

 

[Rick M]

Thanks for all the effort you are putting into these comparisons Jake, very beneficial for many.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Here are a couple taken today of Port Colden United Methodist Church in Port Colden, NJ. Both had lens profile correction applied in post, the latter also had perspective correction applied. Shot with the D600 and then processing using Nik Viveza 2 and Color Efex Pro 4 (Color Contrast, Reflector and Vignette, both Lens & Blur, filters applied). Click on the photo for full size.

Several people have PM'd me about this lens, so for the curious I've uploaded an out-of-camera, untouched, full-res JPEG of the first shot that can be downloaded here if you're curious as to what things look like out of the camera. There can be some significant CA on the edges of this lens, but they clean up very easily in Lightroom.

The straight out of the camera might look nice if I had not seen the one here first. That is a beautiful shot. I love the color.

 

[rocketman122]

My point was not about time. if you edit slowly thats fine. I was noting those that take 20+ per photo who edit the crap out of the photo where it looks nothing like the original or even close to. I believe in enhancing but not changing where its not recognizable from the original. copying pieces from other images . my point is if you cant get close to the picture you wanted through the gear, the software doesnt make you a great photographer. that person is no skill. its no skill to click buttons of plugins. when I shoot, I chimp the pics and say, yea, kick ass! I dont say, eh, Ill fix it in PS. I say, man this looks great, and once I tweak the color a little (fix the dance floor lights color cast a bit towards warmish colors) its going to look perfect. not, crap! but ill salvage it in PS. im saying, tweak and correct but sheesh people dont have limits. you should be at 90% of the image you want through skill and gear, not software. I respect a photog who's work is clean and doesnt need add on bling to make it stand out. clean and simple photographic style is classic and timeless and will always be relevant. photoshop bling is according to trend and is temporary.

 

[BackdoorArts]

The straight out of the camera might look nice if I had not seen the one here first. That is a beautiful shot. I love the color.

Thanks, Don. I've been passing this place for ages, and I've always wanted to shoot it but it's very close to the street and there are these power lines running right in front of it, so it took having a lens like this to do it justice. The brain does something with light and colors that can be very difficult to capture, and I believe the photographer has to decide just where to go with the processing to bring out what was seen when the camera was pointed at the subject. This stood out as very vivid in my mind at the time, and comes out a little flat out of camera, so given the brightness of the day I took a little liberty in popping the colors against the magnificant (almost) winter sky we had. I'm not a huge fan of blur vignetting, but given the centrality of the subject here I like how it draws the eye more than darkened vignetting alone. My other option was to crop in at the sides, and I likely would have had I not tried this first.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Interesting anecdote about this building, if I can recall things correctly. In the bottom shot you can see an old stone church without a steeple in the background (it almost looks attached). That now houses the Board of Education for the Port Colden School District, which is exactly one elementary school located right next door (OMG, now you know why property taxes are so high in NJ). When the steeple was removed from the old church, which dates back to the early 1800's, the Methodist church, which was built in 1891, purchased the steeple and embarked on a construction project to add it to the existing church. I would have never known that had I not seen this photo from Google street view, which is apparently more than 3 years old...

In this photo it's very easy to see the power lines I'm talking about.

The car happened to pass by right in the middle of the (de/re)construction project. I have to say, it's a much more eye pleasing building today.

 

[dramtastic]

My point was not about time. if you edit slowly thats fine. I was noting those that take 20+ per photo who edit the crap out of the photo where it looks nothing like the original or even close to. I believe in enhancing but not changing where its not recognizable from the original. copying pieces from other images . my point is if you cant get close to the picture you wanted through the gear, the software doesnt make you a great photographer. that person is no skill. its no skill to click buttons of plugins. when I shoot, I chimp the pics and say, yea, kick ass! I dont say, eh, Ill fix it in PS. I say, man this looks great, and once I tweak the color a little (fix the dance floor lights color cast a bit towards warmish colors) its going to look perfect. not, crap! but ill salvage it in PS. im saying, tweak and correct but sheesh people dont have limits. you should be at 90% of the image you want through skill and gear, not software. I respect a photog who's work is clean and doesnt need add on bling to make it stand out. clean and simple photographic style is classic and timeless and will always be relevant. photoshop bling is according to trend and is temporary.

We get it, your a great photographer. The rest of us are following this thread to learn.