new lens question again...

[Anbesol]

whats a really good wide angle lens offered for the minolta mount? prefferably something i can get used (so it can be affordable and good quality at the same time ;)). prefferably something (with the equivalent of) less then 28mm.

[Ronnoco]

Well, first I find that wider than 28mm, usually involves a lot of work in avoiding distortion. Hanging from things to get the right angle can get a little risky at times.

Nevertheless Sigma and Tokina probably have the best third party super wide angle lens for Minolta and there are some original Minolta fish eye lens still around in some stores and on the net as well. The third party lens are at 16mm and there are some 12mm as well. They are not cheap though. American prices are in the neighbourhood of $700.

Ronnoco

[Anbesol]

naturally.

what do you think about converters? like a filter type, i find plenty of 0.42x and such converters but very few wide angle lens, and when i do theyre EXPENSIVE!

[payn817]

Those converters are on ebay for around $40. I don't like them personally, due to past experience (not with minolta). Used super wide are difficult to find at good prices lately.

Ritz/wolf has the following offers though

KM 17-35 $599
Quantaray 19-35 $200
sigma 10-20 $500
sigma 15-30 $500
sigma 15 f/2.8 $500

Not exactly cheap. Did you get the kit lens with your 5D (think that was what you have)? If so, on the short end it is 27mm equiv. Perhaps not all that wide for your intent though. I find it useful enough and it seems fairly sharp, even open.

Here's one at 18mm f/3.5 for an example. It has a tad bit of distortion, but software would clean it up.

[Ronnoco]

Yes, as an 18 mm shot, that is excellent. A higher angle might have helped the distortion problem but in a Catholic church, that is hard to do, in a manner that is not inappropriate.
Plug-ins such as Dx0 Optics Pro would be ideal but they do not I think have much in the way of Minolta related software.

I have never used the converters, so I really can't talk about them.

Ronnoco

[Anbesol]

how about the fisheyes?

[Ronnoco]

The problem with fish eyes is value for money spent. Remember two aspects of very wide angle lens. They flatten out a distant scene or distort a very close one. They are a very specialized lens that must be carefully understood in order to be used effectively.

I would use a fisheye taking off or coming in for a landing in an open cockpit airplane in a hilly or mountainous area, doing a canyon shot from either the top or the bottom in British Columbia or in various areas of the U.S., a city shot from the roof of a tall building looking down, a shot from under a ski jump as the skier is taking off, a shot from a parasail or a hang glider, etc.

The problem is that there are not that many shooting locations, nor activities, nor subjects where the fish eye lens is the perfect answer for the shot. Photographers develop an eye for seeing a shot, the way they would shoot it but developing a "fish eye" is next to impossible for most.

The result is that it would be difficult to get sufficient effective fish eye shots, to make it worth the investment.

Ronnoco

[Anbesol]

The problem with fish eyes is value for money spent. Remember two aspects of very wide angle lens. They flatten out a distant scene or distort a very close one. They are a very specialized lens that must be carefully understood in order to be used effectively.

I would use a fisheye taking off or coming in for a landing in an open cockpit airplane in a hilly or mountainous area, doing a canyon shot from either the top or the bottom in British Columbia or in various areas of the U.S., a city shot from the roof of a tall building looking down, a shot from under a ski jump as the skier is taking off, a shot from a parasail or a hang glider, etc.

The problem is that there are not that many shooting locations, nor activities, nor subjects where the fish eye lens is the perfect answer for the shot. Photographers develop an eye for seeing a shot, the way they would shoot it but developing a "fish eye" is next to impossible for most.

The result is that it would be difficult to get sufficient effective fish eye shots, to make it worth the investment.

Ronnoco

well put! Spoken like a real pro (maybe you are too!). Well, thats kind of what i was thinking too, id prefer ultra wide over fisheye - not much of a difference, but yes, fisheyes give you very strangely distorted angles. I do however shoot in mountains, and sometimes id just really like to cover some more area without having to run around too much.

[brettania]

This shot was taken to illustrate flare handling by the Min 16mm. But also indicates the sort of result that you can get if you are careful with how you place the horizon.

[brettania]

And this is where the line of interest is low in the frame.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=brettania]This shot was taken to illustrate flare handling by the Min 16mm. But also indicates the sort of result that you can get if you are careful with how you place the horizon.
[QUOTE]

So, Brettania, have you experimented with correcting wide ange distortion using Photoshop or third party plug-ins such as Dx0: Optics Pro?

Ronnoco

[brettania]

To be honest -- no.
Hardly used the lens since then. Too much forum work at dyxum, and not enough real photography.

[farkengruven]

Got a Sigma 14mm 2.8.
On ebay for less than $500. nice lens.