• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

iZugar 3.25mm f/2.5 Fisheye released


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:34 AM

http://www.izugar.co.../product/mkx22/

 

220 degrees ... impressive.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,737 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 07:17 AM

Not a mention of degrees in the blurb!

#3 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 24 September 2017 - 09:43 PM

There was another company doing up to 260 degree fisheyes. I couldn't find it anymore, however, but I could find this:

 

https://petapixel.co...can-see-behind/

http://www.entapano....isheyelens.html

 

The company I tried to find also did 2 more fisheyes. I'll try and find a link. The entapano fisheyes are crazily expensive.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#4 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 24 September 2017 - 09:53 PM

Hmm, maybe it was Entaniya, if you look at B&H:

 

https://www.bhphotov...35/N/4294255798

 

There are different options for different FLs, and it appears to have the same front element group.

On MFT, the image is always cut-off above 3.0 mm, however.

 

I wonder how this is with the iZugar, as this is a 3.2 mm lens :)

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

P.S.: For a very cheap 180 degree fisheye, there is this for those who'd liek to experiment with fisheye:

https://www.amazon.c...BznpkCkfDTl5wSg



#5 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 September 2017 - 12:11 AM

I was already wondering whether to review the Pixco. However, the IQ seems to be really bad.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#6 Ron H

Ron H

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 September 2017 - 05:07 PM

I purchased the Meike 6.5mm Ultra Wide f/2.0 Circular Fisheye Lens earlier this year. Has 190 degrees fov. Hard to keep my feet out of those pictures. Seems well made and sharp. And a good bit cheaper then this one. My only problem with using the lens is finding good subjects.



#7 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 26 September 2017 - 09:01 PM

I purchased the Meike 6.5mm Ultra Wide f/2.0 Circular Fisheye Lens earlier this year. Has 190 degrees fov. Hard to keep my feet out of those pictures. Seems well made and sharp. And a good bit cheaper then this one. My only problem with using the lens is finding good subjects.


It's not about finding a subject but about not repeating yourself and ending with pictures that look alike. Any subject is good for fisheye just look for lines and curves that would allow you to frame well. Using a fisheye is a very rewarding experience. Of the five last weddings I did less than 1% of the pictures were taken with a fisheye, and in each and every wedding out of 2 or three pictures to be printed in large format there was a fisheye photo chosen by the couple

#8 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:22 AM

Well, it has to be the oddest FL/aperture combo I've seen in a lens... for a good while. :)



#9 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:34 AM

I was just thinking: What a waste of already small sensor area...  :ph34r:



#10 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:24 PM

I was just thinking: What a waste of already small sensor area...  :ph34r:

Same as with the Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 really... (though I'd like to try it once for a laugh).

I'm not much a fan of circular fisheyes. Diagonal ones, on the other hand, are a good thing to use. I would get the Canon 8-15L (that my wife covets anyway) not because it has the circular option, but because neither of us use a full-frame camera, and the zoom lens has those precious intermediate settings workable on any of the smaller formats.



#11 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:15 PM

Hmm, why not the Tokina 10-17 then?
Editor
photozone.de

#12 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:04 PM

Also consider any 8mm fisheye, they are dirt cheap, yet quality is excellent DOF is so big focusing is never an issue, I don't think manual aperture is a problem, you set the focus on the estimated distance by reading on the lens barrel set aperture and shoot, you will use viewfinder only for composing not focusing

#13 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 03 October 2017 - 07:54 AM

Hmm, why not the Tokina 10-17 then?

That thought had crossed my mind, but the 8-15 is better made mechanically, has modern AF, is weather sealed, and I'm not sure of what kind of IQ to expect of the 10-17 outside the APS-C image circle (I'm using a 1D Mark 4 camera).

However, it looks like I'm gonna end up with the Tokina anyway, as it's 40% the price of the 8-15.



#14 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:24 AM

Hm, well, on APS-H you might have to look for a Tokina without hood already.

The EF 15 is not wide enough?

One fact in favour of the Tokina (and also the EF 15) is size: the 8-15 is quite bulky in comparison.
Editor
photozone.de

#15 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 09 October 2017 - 04:22 PM

Hm, well, on APS-H you might have to look for a Tokina without hood already.

The EF 15 is not wide enough?

One fact in favour of the Tokina (and also the EF 15) is size: the 8-15 is quite bulky in comparison.

The EF 15mm is only about as wide on APS-C as a rectilinear 11mm, it seemed (I tried it a few times). The rest is, well, subject to debate and evaluation sometime down the road.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de