Nikon 12-24 vs Nikon 10.5 fisheye

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by greg, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. greg

    greg Guest

    Okay, let's try this.

    Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
    some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options are:

    - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

    The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
    18-70 lens you already have.

    The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

    Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

    G

    (yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
    I'm just looking for opinions)
    greg, Sep 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "greg" <> wrote:
    > - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >
    > Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?


    You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
    the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
    you were going to be mostly defishing.)

    > (yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
    > I'm just looking for opinions)


    Fisheye's a cute effect, but I've rarely seen it used effectively.
    Rectilinear ultrawide is much more useful.

    I'd be more concerned comparing the Stigma 12-24 with the Nikon. The
    Stigma's cheaper and can be used on a film body, but needs to be stopped way
    down (f/11 at least according to the reviews) and can't use filters.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. greg

    gsum Guest

    ..... or how about the Sigma 14mm. I have the f3.5 version - there's
    a newer f2.8. At f3.5 it is soft but no milk bottle. Very good at f11.
    Build quality is good for a Sigma.

    Graham


    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:chm6uq$gda$...
    >
    > "greg" <> wrote:
    > > - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > > - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    > >
    > > Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

    >
    > You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality

    at
    > the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye

    if
    > you were going to be mostly defishing.)
    >
    > > (yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone

    else;
    > > I'm just looking for opinions)

    >
    > Fisheye's a cute effect, but I've rarely seen it used effectively.
    > Rectilinear ultrawide is much more useful.
    >
    > I'd be more concerned comparing the Stigma 12-24 with the Nikon. The
    > Stigma's cheaper and can be used on a film body, but needs to be stopped

    way
    > down (f/11 at least according to the reviews) and can't use filters.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >
    gsum, Sep 8, 2004
    #3
  4. "greg" <> writes:

    > Okay, let's try this.
    >
    > Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
    > some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options are:
    >
    > - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >
    > The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
    > 18-70 lens you already have.
    >
    > The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.
    >
    > Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?


    Interesting question.

    > (yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
    > I'm just looking for opinions)


    Okay, I'll skip the lecture this time then :).

    Probably the fish, on the grounds that extremism is good. And because
    it gives me more opportunity to play with the de-fishing tools. And
    because I've never owned a fisheye.

    A fisheye has uniform exposure, whereas a rectilinear wideangle
    *cannot*.

    And because I like faster lenses, in general.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 8, 2004
    #4
  5. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "greg" <> wrote:
    >> - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    >> - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >>
    >> Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

    >
    > You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
    > the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
    > you were going to be mostly defishing.)


    "A lot of time"? Can you quantify that somewhat? I certainly don't
    find overall perspective corrections that computationally intensive;
    is the fan/defan much worse? I've only played with it a little...not
    having a fisheye. (I've played with it in the other direction,
    creating fisheye images from rectilinear shots.)

    A 15mm doesn't get him out all that wide really.

    How much *is* that 10.5 mm anyway? Hmmm, only $570@B&H. Not too bad
    really.

    The Sigma 14mm f2.8 is $900. Nikon's own 12-24 is $975. This is
    weird, I can't seem to find the Sigma 12-24mm, but I remember it as
    being around $600 last I looked.

    I must say that I found the Sigma 12-24 rather nice to play with when
    I was loaned one for about a day.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 8, 2004
    #5
  6. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >
    > > "greg" <> wrote:
    > >> - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > >> - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    > >>
    > >> Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

    > >
    > > You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality

    at
    > > the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm

    fisheye if
    > > you were going to be mostly defishing.)

    >
    > "A lot of time"? Can you quantify that somewhat? I certainly don't
    > find overall perspective corrections that computationally intensive;
    > is the fan/defan much worse? I've only played with it a little...not
    > having a fisheye. (I've played with it in the other direction,
    > creating fisheye images from rectilinear shots.)
    >
    > A 15mm doesn't get him out all that wide really.


    http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/

    "A lot of time": Defishing sounds like a pain in the butt to me. And you
    can't really see what you're doing/getting when you take the picture.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 8, 2004
    #6
  7. greg

    Roger Guest

    Greg,

    I sometimes have to think about the lenses in their 35mm equivalents
    to get my bearings. The overlap you are talking about begins at 18mm
    (27me (mm equivalent)). The "new range" would be acquiring is the
    18me-28me or about three lenses (18/21/24)me in a "traditional" setup.
    In my experience this is a huge angle of view extension over the lens
    you currently have. In addition the overlap range covers only the
    typical (28/36)me lenses which IMO are not that dramatic in coverage
    differences.

    The convenience for me of going from 12-24 (18/20/24/28/36) on a
    single lens would put the decision over the top. That's Ultra Wide to
    walking-around-lens on a single lens change.

    I'm more concerned about not having lens changes with digital as I
    often don't have that good of control over the environment in which I
    have to change the lenses.

    Anyway, my two cents worth.

    Regards,
    Roger

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:22:19 GMT, "greg" <> wrote:

    >Okay, let's try this.
    >
    >Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
    >some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options are:
    >
    > - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >
    >The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
    >18-70 lens you already have.
    >
    >The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.
    >
    >Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?
    >
    >G
    >
    >(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
    >I'm just looking for opinions)
    >
    Roger, Sep 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:-b.net...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>
    >> > "greg" <> wrote:
    >> >> - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    >> >> - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >> >>
    >> >> Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?
    >> >
    >> > You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality

    > at
    >> > the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm

    > fisheye if
    >> > you were going to be mostly defishing.)

    >>
    >> "A lot of time"? Can you quantify that somewhat? I certainly don't
    >> find overall perspective corrections that computationally intensive;
    >> is the fan/defan much worse? I've only played with it a little...not
    >> having a fisheye. (I've played with it in the other direction,
    >> creating fisheye images from rectilinear shots.)
    >>
    >> A 15mm doesn't get him out all that wide really.

    >
    > http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/
    >
    > "A lot of time": Defishing sounds like a pain in the butt to me. And you
    > can't really see what you're doing/getting when you take the picture.


    I grabbed their sample and straightened it out in less than a minute
    -- for my very first time, starting with trying to remember which tool
    to use in Picture Window Pro (geometry -> lens distortion). Took me
    a minute to convince myself the weird shape resulting was correct (I
    hadn't read that far into the article yet).

    I haven't played with how much resolution you really have left after
    doing this to a camera-original image, or the various other things
    that might be problems in practice.

    *And* I found out about those Zenit fisheyes, maybe I should get one.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 8, 2004
    #8
  9. greg

    Ken Guest

    If "fisheye" is not your objective then go with the Nikon 12/24. I own
    one and am pleased with results. Go to a shop if possible and try one.

    Ken

    "greg" <> wrote in message
    news:fGw%c.351315$gE.17291@pd7tw3no...
    > Okay, let's try this.
    >
    > Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking

    for
    > some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options are:
    >
    > - Nikon 12-24 f/4
    > - Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye
    >
    > The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by

    the
    > 18-70 lens you already have.
    >
    > The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.
    >
    > Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?
    >
    > G
    >
    > (yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
    > I'm just looking for opinions)
    >
    >
    Ken, Sep 8, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. peter
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,143
    peter
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Cooter

    Nikon 5700 Fisheye Question

    Cooter, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    364
    Ed Ruf
    Nov 19, 2003
  3. -Gene-

    Nikon 5400 FC-E9 fisheye images

    -Gene-, Nov 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    959
    Ed Ruf
    Dec 10, 2003
  4. sid

    Fisheye for Nikon D70

    sid, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,513
    Roger Halstead
    May 16, 2004
  5. maddisonlake

    Canon G6 Compatability with Nikon Fisheye FC-E8

    maddisonlake, Apr 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    478
    maddisonlake
    Apr 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page