Dilemma.... been saving my pennies and finally have enough money to invest in a new piece of glass. I've decided to go for a fish-eye, keeping the price to $700 or less (this unfortunately rules out the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 ED AF I'd buy if I were Ms. MoneyBags)..... Since I'm really happy with my Sigma EX 105 Macro, Sigma is definitely at the top of my list in possiblities. Now here is the dilemma.... Fixed focal length or wide angle zoom? ..... and those pesky variable aperture openings sigh..... I'd prefer FFL and a non-variable aperture of f/28.... but would I be better served by a WA zoom of say 15-30mm, for say more landscape shooting? I probably wouldn't be quite so hesitant if the f/stops were non-variable.....

A couple of possibilities I'm entertaining.... Sigma EX 15 f/2.8 Nikon 16 f/2.8 (little over budget) or maybe Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5 - 4.5 Sigma 15-30 f/3.5 - 4/5 Any opinions..... anyone had experience with any of these...?

Attached Link: http://www.rugift.com/index.html

Hi Michelle, I can recommend the russian Zenitar 2.8/16. A very good lens with excellent sharpness. Get it for $125 from Rugift. I got mine from http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/. /Jan

My English has cheated me, I've just interpreted: "Dilemma.... been saving my penis and finally have enough" worried I read it again uf! WA and fisheye are things completely different for me. I recommend you see photos with fisheye before buy one. How many photos would you take with a fisheye? I think it's more easy weary a fisheye than a WA. Anyway my recommendation fixed focal always! And of course 2,8 . minimum! Also I think that SIGMA is the best election price/quality: the quality is very similar and the price very different. Btw, I don't imagine you with a zoom 18-35 It's like to imagine GWBush reading a book odd :|

Do you have to buy an adapter ring when using the Russian Zenitar with an Canon EOS camera? What are the quality of the lenses? Do they have glass or plastic inside? And.. are those prices in American dollars? The cost seems so little for the type of lens?

Sorry I can't help too much on this. As I've said before, I really like my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 . A ultrawide really helps to shake out the cobwebs! I considered a fish-eye, but practacality talked me out of it. The way I tend to work with a wide angle, I do not think a zoom would be worthwhile. But I've never really used one in this range, so could easily be wrong. For me, autofocus is important with a wide lens; very difficult to see the focus. OTOH, most everything is in focus anyway at normal distances. [I tend to get pretty close at times.] Also, consider how to protect the front element. (Big) Skylight filter?

Attached Link: http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F20

Spent the whole afternoon, staring at lenses on Adorama, looking at a lens performance chart that a very special person sent me.... unfortunately my initial choices did not fare well in performance ratings on that chart..... and now I'm thinking of the f/2.8 20-40 Sigma EX DG DF..... it got good ratings on POP Photo's lens tests (which I always take with a grain of salt), but I'm finding similar ratings on this lens elsewhere.... from a practical stand point it makes more sense because my camera bag is already so heavy.... and the uses of a fish-eye as enax pointed out are limited.... the 20mm will still give me a 94.5 degree angle. Also found this page for optical quality at the link above.... photodo.com seems like it hasn't been updated in years.... it's beginning to not be very useful....

The Zenitar is made of heavy metal and glass. Very rugged. Sharp. Except edges of course.

"fish-eye" refers to wide-angle lense which give a distorted, round, image. There are extreme wide-angle lenses which don't do that. 24mm and 28mm lenses are the commonplace WA lenses. Wider lenses start to get expensive, even the optically simpler lenses made under the Voigtlander name for rangefinder cameras. There is a WA Zenitar as well as the fish-eye. I suspect the zoom WA lenses are being driven by the digital SLR market.

Attached Link: http://www.kievcamera.com/camera.php?ID=15

I've maybe gotten a bit confused, thinking of the Peleng 3.5/8mm as the fisheye. The Zenitar 2.8/16mm does show the fish-eye barrel-distortion but does give a full-frame image. Have a look at the link -- they do include some comparison shot with the Zenitar and other wide lenses.

Zoom lenses tend to be slightly softer than fixed, but with a wide ange setup you might be able to get away with it...it's always nice to have the options of the zoom. I've also had good luck with sigma stuff.

I am wondering if a Canon EOS Rebel (300D) can take a FD type lens or not? I did a real quick 'lensdoc' fix to the fisheye image from that kievcamera site for fun.

Attached Link: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/canon_cameras_lenses.htm

No, the FD lens mount is for older cameras like F-1, A-1 and others. You need the EOS mount. You can get a Zenitar with EOS-mount at RuGift. /Jan

To sort things out. The Zenitar 2.8/16mm is a full frame fish-eye lens. The Peleng is a lens that doesn't fill the frame. The image is round. Both lenses are diagonally 180 degrees. You get "more" with the Peleng as it is 180 degrees in all directions. /Jan

Could you use PanTools, (or even HDRShop), to correct the 'fishyness' of the fisheye to make it look normal?

Attached Link: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/canon_eos_lens_adapter.htm

Looking at the RuGift site, they're selling a Canon EOS adaptor for M42 lenses, and that may explain the range of lenses they're offering. A couple of them have been around for a **long** time in M42. The adaptor might be worth having anyway, and if that's the approach they use for the Zenitar, I'm doing much the same to put a 28mm on my LTM camera. It works, but it may feel a bit limited on modern hardware.