File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Does /p/ own a Zenitar 16mm?

I'll purchase one in the near future and was wondering what/how CPL will fit on it

picture very related
>> Anonymous
>>209673
WTF is wrong with that house!
>> Anonymous
>>209675
Don't you mean building or structure?
>> Anonymous
>>209677
House for rich fags - Building for poor fags
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209673
No CPL on that lens, unless maybe there's clearance to break a small one out of its ring and glue it to the rear element. :/

Fun lens, though, from what I've heard.
>> Anonymous
Sounds like a shitty lens:

http://kenrockwell.com/zenit/zenitar-16mm.htm
>> Anonymous
>>209675
HSB Turning Torso
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/turningtorso.htm
>> Anonymous
sounds like a really shitty lens
be careful op in some digital cameras it hits the mirror

http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I actually own the Zenitar 16mm. It's a fantastic lens, very sharp and fast.

>>209713
This is why I hate Ken Rockwell, and anyone that links to his site thinking it's canon camera law. Ken Rockwell is just stupid enough to think that the rear filters don't have any added focal length. They actually do, and you need the clear one on at all times or else your pictures end up "comically soft". But if it's on, the lens is razor-sharp. The lens is also AMAZING with CA -- there are no cro-mabs to speak of, even in high-contrast scenes.

Excuse the poor picture all, but this was shot with my z16. Only resized, no sharpening or other edits:
>> Anonymous
>>209734
lawl >and anyone that links to his site thinking it's canon camera law
>> Anonymous
>>209710
>No CPL on that lens

so how was op picture taken?
>> Anonymous
>>209778

push butan, receive photo
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>209778
Considering the color of the building, and that bright reflection, the sky is probably just a little underexposed.
>> Anonymous
>>209734
MOAR
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>209786
Okay, two horrible film print scans because I don't have a negative scanner, but they're good to show perspective.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>209786
Horrible quality film print scans because I don't have a negative scanner, but they're good to show perspective.
>> Anonymous
http://www.peterberger.at/zenitar/index.htm?1
>> Anonymous
>>209734
>Ken Rockwell is just stupid enough to think that the rear filters don't have any added focal length. They actually do, and you need the clear one on at all times or else your pictures end up "comically soft". But if it's on, the lens is razor-sharp. The lens is also AMAZING with CA -- there are no cro-mabs to speak of, even in high-contrast scenes.

Yes, but the point is that WITH the rear filter on it hits the mirror in many modern DSLRs.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Without the filter on your pictures will be ridiculously soft when the lens is wide open, but with the filter on you run the risk of fucking up your mirror.

SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE IT'S A SHITTY LENS FOR USE ON A DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>209814
The filter is about 1mm thick. If this makes a difference, it's more of a design fault with the camera than with the lens. I guess my Sony A100 is pretty technologically advanced compared to other, more expensive DSLRs, since the mirror doesn't hit it.
>> Anonymous
>>209762

PROTIP: the word "Canon" does not always mean the brand of camera.
>> Anonymous
I find the 16mm Zenitar pretty much useless on APS and smaller sensors. The FoV isn't wide enough for a really noticeable fisheye effect, so it ends up being just a wide angle lens with bad geometry. Moreover, you can get the same result with your usual ~12mm rectilinear wide angle lens and the Lens Correction filter.

The 8mm Peleng is more useful, but it becomes a true diagonal fisheye only on Olympus, on other small-sensor DSLRs you have to crop the image heavily to get rid of black corners.
>> Anonymous
>>209855
The 8mm peleng is also ~$600. In b4 "price doesn't matter" and other such inaccuracisms.
>> Anonymous
>>209862
LOL WUT? $600+ is first-party AF lens territory. The Peleng costs somewhere between $250-400 depending on where you buy it.
>> Anonymous
>>209864
You're right, but $400 is still too much.
>> Anonymous
>>209864
$250, WHERE?
>> Anonymous
>>210839
Soviet russia