I just got a local, great deal on some recent Olympus MFT cameras and an 8mm lens. This was the first time I went out to shoot with it for about an hour. I prefer more normal lenses. I just don't get the 8mm (16mm FF) fish eye lens. These were my best shots with just a few quick edits.
I am curious about your opinion on this lens type.
Interesting effect for sure. I'm interested in hearing what others say too. I've never used a lens less than 17mm.
Same as Lensbaby, it's all for creativity.
Speaking of creativity, yesterday I picked up a roll of Panatomic-X with an exp of Jan 1978. It's going to need a lot of light for ASA 32!
How DARE you mention L*"&'#;/!!! lol
ASA 32 film? That would be perfect for long exposure shots or ICM - without the need for ND filters.
Of course your shot count would be severely limited.....
Throughout the years I have always wanted to try a fish eye, primarily as they produce such a different view of the familiar.
I think they have appeal, but I feel the subject has to align with the effect. In your examples I feel the second best demonstrates this, and to a lesser extent the last (looks like a picture of the globe.....).
I'm interested in seeing how you use this further,
With the second one (and others not successfully), it's really difficult not to get your feet in the photo!
But as I don't really get it, I'm very likely to sell it but I'm sure I'll take some more photos before that.
Very hard to avoid a gimmicky look with fisheyes. But then I'm even less of a WA person than Jenny - my widest lens has been a 20, and is my least-used. I think you did a good job with the second image, all the same, Charles.
Thanks. I am a wide angle guy but nonetheless the second does seem to be a favorite - but it's not what I care for. Yeah, I don't get WA fisheyes.