Nikkor 16mm f 2.8 fisheye OR the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye

<p>I’m contemplating purchasing a fisheye lens to use mainly for 360 ° Panoramas.<br>

It would be used on a Nikon D800. I already have a wide angle lens the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8g lens, (which I’m very happy with) however from the research I’ve done it appears that it better to use a fisheye lens for this type of panoramas. Easier post processing, fewer photos required, etc.<br>

The two lenses I’ve looked at are the Nikkor 16mm f 2.8 fisheye and the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye lens.<br>

Does anyone have any experience with these two lenses, is there much difference (optically, sharpness) between them , better autofocus?<br>

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>I cannot comment on the Sigma fisheye because I have never owned or used it. I do, however, own and use the Nikon 16mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon. Both are very good lenses that can be used for creating panoramics.</p>

<div></div>

<p>In his review of the Sigma 15mm, Thom Hogan http://www.bythom.com/15lens.htm wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Frankly, I don't know of anything that would make me want the Nikkor over the Sigma, especially considering the price differential. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thinking about making the same purchasing decision and having done a bit of reading about both lenses, I am more and more inclined towards following Thom's suggestion. </p>

<p>I've always used rectilinear wide angle images stitched together for 360-degree panoramas, so I'm curious about</p>

<blockquote>

<p>from the research I’ve done it appears that it better to use a fisheye lens for this type of panoramas. Easier post processing, fewer photos required, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you point me to some of your sources on that or examples?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>IF you are going to get a fisheye, try to get the 16/3.5 AI Nikkor - it's the best performing fisheye I've found. Much sharper than the 16/2.8 Nikkor as well as the Sigma (which is significantly less sharp than either). Also has fantastic flare/ghost control (the f/2.8 Nikkor is also great too).<br>

The 16/3.5 is just about as sharp as the 16/2.8 AIS or 16/2.8 AF-D in the center, but it's far far sharper once you get a bit off center at all apertures (especially so wide open) than the f/2.8.<br>

They can be a little hard to find, but they pop up on Ebay, etc. every month.<br>

John</p>

<p>I, too, am sceptical about the ease of getting 360 degree panoramas from 2-3 fisheye shots: it would seem much more complicated than using, say, a regular 14-24 mm lens.</p>

<p>The Sigma fisheye is good, but I found the AF unreliable (what's new there?) but this is not really a big deal for a fisheye. For what it is worth, I found the Canon 15mm fisheye better still (and the AF works properly), but the Sigma is still a good performer and has excellent build quality.</p>

<p>ive had the sigma 15mm fisheye for years and have no complaints about AF or sharpness. i probably wouldnt overthink this one too much.</p><div></div>

<p>Back in my 35mm film days I had a Sigma 15 FFFE. I replaced it with the Nikon 16/2.8 and liked that much better, but it was so long ago that I don't remember why.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your advice. The main reason I’ve narrowed my search to these two lenses was that both have auto focus. There might be cheaper (possibly better) manual focusing lenses out there but when traveling the less time it takes me to take the photos and move on the better. That is why I am looking for a lens with fast and accurate AF that can capture reasonably sharp images.<br>

@ JDM von Weingberg I’ve come across a few sites (links bellow) which indicate that the number of photos required when using a fish eye lens is 6 to 8 plus 1 zenith and 1 nadir – total 8 to 10 photos compared with 14 to 22 photos with a 14-24mm lens. This makes a lot of difference in the time it takes to edit all the photos as well as trying to stich them all together.<br>

<a href="http://www.panoramic-photo-guide.com/virtual-tour-360-photography/how-many-photos-what-focal-to-make-a-virtual-tour.html">http://www.panoramic-photo-guide.com/virtual-tour-360-photography/how-many-photos-what-focal-to-make-a-virtual-tour.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.vrwave.com/">http://www.vrwave.com/</a> <br>

Under normal circumstances and for best results it is always indicated to use a panoramic head Nodal Ninja 3 or 4 (or something similar) however when traveling light I want to try (hopefully with decent results) using a "philopod", piece of string with a weight at the end which is centered on a point on the ground ( a little stone or coin).<br>

@ Dieter There is not a lot of difference in the price of the two lenses in Australia, approximately $150, which I’m happy to pay provided there is a significant difference in the quality of the photos I can get.</p>

<p>Thanks. appreciate the references.</p>

<p>Based on the one brand-new copy of the Nikon AF-D 16/2.8 I had, that lens is overpriced. Get a manual focus Nikon 2.8 or 3.5. JHinkey is correct...the Nikon f/3.5 resolves the most detail.</p>

<p>Sabin, why is AF a requirement? It's not for action photos, and depth of field with a fish-eye is so ample that a minor misfocus isn't going to show on your photo. I've got no fisheye, so I cannot compare for any of those, but for the ultrawides and wideangles I have, I really never found AF all that useful. And MF actually can be faster: you just set it to an approriate distance, stop down a bit to have massive depth of field, and you're done. No hunting, no misfocussing, no delays.<br>

Given that those with experience praise the MF fisheyes over their AF counterparts, I'd give those serious consideration.</p>

<p>The curious thing about fisheyes is that it still pays to focus accurately, because (as we all know) there is still only one plane of focus that is truly in focus, even when stopped down. As a fisheye includes so much in one shot there is often a huge disparity in subject-to-camera distances for all the objects included- so ideally you do still need to focus accurately on the main point of interest. AF is therefore still useful and quicker than having to manually focus via live view - optical VF focusing will not work with sufficient accuracy. AF is not essential, but it is nice to have.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the input. I’ll wait until I can get a good deal on the Sigma and go with that lens.</p>

<p>Using a 180º diagonal fisheye to do 360º panoramas will be difficult at best. Because of the very obvious curvilinear distortion, trying to merge 2 or 3 images will give the edges a very "scalloped" appearance. You would be much better off using a less extreme wide angle lens and merging them together.</p>