is a 10-20mm lens and a 15mm fish eye lens similar?

[ignorant88]

Are the 2 similar and if you have one of them, do u need the other?

let me get this rt...is the 10-20 mm a fish eye lens too or is it not?

is it true that if I want to take close up shots of nature, I need a 10-20mm lens vs a 15mm fish eye lens?
thnx for all comments and advise

[djwixx]

One is a fisheye and the other is a wide angle - not the same at all. If the manufacturer calls it a fisheye then that's what it is, if they don't it's not.

It depends on what you mean by close ups of nature? If you mean a flower head or an insect then you need a close focusing lens of any length that gets you as close as you want. In most cases people use a 1:1 macro, although a lot of manufacturers call their lenses macro when they are actually micro.

[andrzejmakal]

IMHO it`s the same, but 15mm prime in full frame is really fisheye, 10-20 (I guess it`s Sigma) is on the Nikon for ex. fisheye (eq.15mm) and is going to be only wide at tele end (20=30).
15mm on full frame and 10mm on APS sensor is the same, no matter how do you call it. But if you are going to use 15 prime on APS you are not fisheye at all (22,5mm on nikon, 24mm on Canon). Better go for 10-20.
It my opinion
Regards
Maki

[ignorant88]

IMHO it`s the same, but 15mm prime in full frame is really fisheye, 10-20 (I guess it`s Sigma) is on the Nikon for ex. fisheye (eq.15mm) and is going to be only wide at tele end (20=30).
15mm on full frame and 10mm on APS sensor is the same, no matter how do you call it. But if you are going to use 15 prime on APS you are not fisheye at all (22,5mm on nikon, 24mm on Canon). Better go for 10-20.
It my opinion
Regards
Maki

thnx, both of u seem to have gd info but was a little confused with Maki.. do u mean if I have a 10-20mm lens, I will not need a fish eye lens.

2ndly, a 10-20mm lens will not really help in tking really close shots of a flower or bee and I should get a macto lens instead.... if so any recommendation for a macro lens?

[andrzejmakal]

I`m not an expert in macro, so ask someone else, but I don't think, that any of wide angle lenses will do a good job in macro (but I may be wrong).
I don't know, what exactly djwixx means, telling that fisheye is just fisheye, and wideangle is just wideangle, but "fisheye" means, that on analog or full frame dSLR you will see very very wide, almost like fish do. In APS sensors you need shorter lenght to get the same angle of view (for nikon it is 10mm).
15mm on APS isn`t fisheye at all (in my opinion), but 10mm is wide enough to get impression of "fisheye". Of course 15mm prime will give you better image quality than any zoom, but optically you are the same on 15mm prime and 10-20 zoom set on 15mm. But if you are NOT doing with 1DMark, or 5D, or any analog, don`t go for 15mm prime, cause it`s not a fisheye for you. You need something like 10 or even 8mm. So 10-20 lens may be a nice solution for you. You can spend your money on 10mm prime of course, but it's nice to have some zome range shooting landscapes. With only 10mm you could be limited in some way IMHO. 8mm is really hardcore, but it may work good for you...
Regards
Maki

[sean_mcr]

They are not the same, that are completely different designs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

[djwixx]

Depending what camera you are using a good option to try macro without the expense is the 50mm F1.8 lens then add close up filters. Canon and Nikon do fantastic 50mm F1.8 for very little money and they make great portrait and landscapes lenses as well. Later you can add extension tubes to increase the focal length. Without extension tubes this option (not true macro) will cost about $150.
Example - http://www.pbase.com/djwixx/image/78130587

Again, depending on the camera, each camera manufacturer will have their own version but Tamron and Tokina make some great macro lenses at about the 90mm range. Bear in mind that with macro you are working in much tighter confines so depth of field and focal point becomes critical and are more difficult to control. Macros lenses also need a lot of light and shutter speeds faster than 1/250th become almost essential. This option will cost about $400.
Example - http://www.pbase.com/djwixx/image/80539396

[dang]

There's also the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro 1:1 lens which sells for around $250. US you can find at B&H and other places. It's a very nice lens for the money.

The best inexpensive option (which I much prefer over diopters) are tubes. You can find an Auto Extension Tube Set $84.95 from Adorama here:
http://www.adorama.com/MCAETEOS.html

I agree, a wide angle isn't what you'll need for shooting close up, if you mean life size. I also have a macro instruction site you might find helpful here:
http://www.dangphoto.net

[thelund]

Setting a 10-20mm lens at 15mm will yield a picture that is a lot different than you will get from a 15mm fisheye, so NO 15mm is not 15mm...

About macros, I can recommend Sigmas line of macros, I have the 105mm myself and I am very happy with it! Sigma also makes a 50mm macro wich is a good deal cheaper, but still very good. A much preferred alternative is Tamrons 90mm macro.

But if you want to do insect shots you may need a even longer lens, the longer your focal length, the greater working distance you will get, some insects are very shy and will flee if you get too close! - Bees can be done with 105mm, some butterflies too, but some insects are too shy, sometimes I wish i bought a 180mm instead...

Using a 10-20mm as macro you would virtually have to have your subject glued to your front lens! Anything living would be too hard to shoot, not to mention that it will not focus that close (Sigma 10-20mm) and that the perspective will be very special for macro shots, which is not all bad but can be hard to get very good shots when you have to put thought into the background of your image too.

I have the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 which can focus pretty close, allthough not as close as a "real" macro lens, it IS interesting for close up shots.


Brian

[ignorant88]

I actually have a canon Rebel XTi. I think everyone has a good point. I noticed some really really cheap marco ring on ebay at abt $40 that supposedly helps to do really close up shot....are they any good. And also des it mean canon 15mm e/f will actually be abel to do some close-up shots even though they are not the best ?...but still much better than say a 18-50mm

[sean_mcr]

have you thought about the tokina 10-17 fisheye?

Made for aps-c bodies

http://www.swpp.co.uk/professional_imag ... kina_1.htm

[djwixx]

I actually have a canon Rebel XTi. I think everyone has a good point. I noticed some really really cheap marco ring on ebay at abt $40 that supposedly helps to do really close up shot....are they any good. And also des it mean canon 15mm e/f will actually be abel to do some close-up shots even though they are not the best ?...but still much better than say a 18-50mm

The main thing with macro lenses is the close focussing distance. macro lenses will let you focus at about 9 inches. I suspect your 18-50 is near three feet.

Dang is the expert when it comes to macro so any advice he gives will be spot on but you will need an awareness to be able to use some of the options.

Someone mentioned a Tamron 90mm - I use it and love it. They also mention needing a longer focal length so i use a 1.4TC with the 90mm, so it gives you a great deal of scope.

I'm not sure what you mean by macro ring, but unfortunately cheap, when it comes to good camera equipment means cheap. You get what you pay for.

[ignorant88]

I was reading the Canon 15mm e/f fisheye lens and it mentioned that close focus was at 0.7 ft......does that not give you real close-up shot of stll life 1:1 sharply? or do you still need an extra add on to get clost up shots sharp?

Boy , I am starting to learn fr everyone. thnx guys

[ignorant88]

Jus an impression, it feels like having a canon original lens is great, but if you cant afford it, it feels like Sigma is next best...then its Tonika...as a brand....opinion?

[ignorant88]

I thought that the smaller the mm. on the lens, the closer the shot you can take to the item shot....ans thus a clearer pic.....so is that a misperception ...so how did the 90,mm Tamaron lens come abt for a close up shot? Thnx for clarifying