Nikkor 10.5 Fisheye as a long termer... Nikkor 12-24 later.... or 10.5 and Sigma/Tokina now??

I have had enough with my D70's 1.5 magnification on my previously wide 17-35....

 

I have decided to get a true wide angle in my bag again. The thing is, I have

waited all summer and want to finally buy something in the next month or so.

 

I am a hobby photographer and mostly shoot travel documentaries and interior

candids.

 

The questions are:

 

Is the Nikkor 12-24 really twice as good as the Sigma/Tokina option? (Don't

bother me with "compatability" issues, as I have had many Sigma lenses for 20+

years (including 6 from the last 5 years) and have never had a problem.) I'm

exhausted of reading the reviews and really want a push one way or the other

now. BTW I prefer and want the Nikkor, but the price diference...

 

Does the 10.5mm Fisheye end up sitting in most of your bags after the intial

exictement? I can see uses for it inside in restaurants and such, but is does

it give me that much more addtional coverage over the 12mm/10mm zoom options?

 

I could get the 12-24 Nikkor today, or i could get the Fisheye and Sigma/Tokina

today too (essentially the same price...)

 

Ideally, I'd like the two Nikkors, but the price of the 12-24 and the long term

usability of the 10.5 are really really bothering me.

 

Help!

1. The 10.5mm DX fisheye lens doesn't sit in my bag, as I'd never buy one.

 

 

2. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HV6b

Thre is a load of the same question discussed at PN every week - try a quick search. The search button is top right :-)

 

I own the 12-24 Nikkor and must say I am very pleased with the lens. Optically it is very close to primes, at the 24mm end almost identical to my 24mmAIS f2.8 lens that is a selected lens and distinctly better than the samples I saw from the later 24mmf2.8AFD lens. The low amount of distortion cought me by surprise when I tried to apply correction factors for dirstortion correction I noticed that in contrast to primes in this range the distortion is so small its not worth it to try and correct it. Really excellent for a zoom.

 

"Don't bother me with "compatability" issues, as I have had many Sigma lenses..." Funny comment because I tried the Nikon and the Sigma in comparison. I had a hard time to decide which one was better. The Sigma was a little better in the wide end and the Nikon a bit better at the 24mm end. HOWEVER: I noticed that all shots with the sigma were 1/2 stop underexposed. No explanation but I went back to take another two samples and compared again. Same result. (Both Sigma lenses from same series with close ser. numbers.)One can probably live with this, i did not bother.

See:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AG59

 

I also want to use pol and grad ND filters for landscapes and at the time I got a good deal for the Nikkor so I settled for that sample. Given twice the price for the Nikkor I would choose the sigma - I only payed a smaller premium for the Nikkor. There are many positive comments (PN search) about the Sigma and the Tokina. The Sigma will cover full 35mm film format (perhaps later Nikon FF sensors ^^).

 

Hope this helps.

Cheers Walter

Do you plan on using Nikon Capture 4.x software? You will need it to tinker with images made with the 10.5mm DX lens, providing you shoot in NEF for your image. (The amount of 'bend' depends on how level you can keep the lens.)

 

 

 

For what it is worth, the Sigma 10-20mm lens is not quite as wide at 10mm as the Nikkor 10.5mm DX lens. Go figure.

The 10.5 is a fisheye and when you convert the images to be rectilinear ones, you do see wider coverage.

 

I would not expect that from a non fisheye (Sigma 10-20 or Nikon's 12-24, etc- though they are only zoomz).

I have three DX lenses and the order I bought them was: (1) 12-24, (2) 17-55 and (3) 10.5; that order was strictly the result of how useful each one of them is. In other words, since the 12-24 covers a range not available from my older FF lenses and therefore solves the wide-angle problem, that is the one I would get first.

<P>

Unless you specalize on fisyeye photography, any fisheye is a highly specialized lens for occasional use. Essentially you get it only if you have extra money. To me, it is great to shoot a few fisheye images in each wedding, but one shouldn't over-do it.

<P>

As far as Nikon vs. Tokina 12-24 goes, see <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HV6b">this current thread</A>.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/general-comments/attachment/3895867/Fisheye9823b.jpg">

<P>

Shot with 10.5mm DX fisheye

</CENTER>

Do you intend to use the fisheye for the distortion or to defish it and make a rectilinear image? I knew the novelty would wear off so I spent $120 on a Russian Zenitar 16mm fisheye for my film cameras. After a month the excitement wore off and I rarely use it anymore. It stays at home, not in the bag. I bought the Nikkor 12-24 2 years ago because it was the only wide angle lens for ANY consumer level digital camera. The third parties and even Canon had no wide angle lens for cropped cameras.

I am right now also considering which 12-24 to buy because 18 is just not wide enough.

Not everyone around here likes Ken Rockwell, but he has posted what I think is an

excellent comparison of the wide zooms for digital. He prefers the Nikon, but admits that

it is a VERY close call. Check it out at

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

 

For me, I'm leaning toward the Tokina unless I find a bunch of money somewhere to afford

the Nikon, which for me has the advantage of AF-S. On the other hand... It's such a wide

angle, I wonder how often I'm going to use autofocus? So, I'm still undecided...

 

I've used fisheyes in the past but never owned them. I'd never buy myself one until I had

every other lens I wanted first.

As others have said, the 10.5mm is a specialized lens. Being able to convert it to rectilinear in Nikon Capturea adds a lot of versatility, but it isn't easy to guess at composition to utilize this feature. Still, I often carry it as a third lens for travel (after my 24mm and 50mm). As Shun has pointed out, it is great for a few images of a subject but can be quickly overdone. There are some images with it in my travel galleries and concert gallery on my website-- they're pretty obvious. My wide angle zoom is the 17-35mm f/2.8, so I can't help you with the other question.

 

http://rhettjacksonphotography.com/

There is also an excellent comparison of the super-wideangle ZOOMS at www.nikonians.org

Like most of you, I am always pressed for time, so I had to try and compress a few questions into one post, sorry!

 

But, it does seem like my expectations for fisheye use are correct - that it is specialized and essentially a novelty item in my case. (Even though I do have Capture 4.4, I've stopped shooting NEF...)

 

I think that at this point it's a mental game - will I get around c50% more cost for the Nikon.. I think I will because, I have to admit, that the AF-S is too slick - I put my kit N18-70 AF-S on the body over the weekend, after trying to pry off my heavily used Sigma 2.8/70-200 and the AF-S was really a step above.

 

Thanks for the advice and help - any more thoughts are welcome!

as a matter of opinion only:

Nikon 12-24 great lens for events (weddings social) good for tight quarters

Sigma 8mm fisheye (not a DX) it's a fun lens for about $450.US

"1. Tokina 12-24mm (unless pride requires everything you own has a nikon label)" - put a Nikon brand lens cap on it - I did this, but there was a different reason for doing so.

 

You can get Nikon brand pinch in/squize in type lens cap, that is for 77mm filter size Nikon lenses like 70-200 VR, or new 85/1.4, and others, and nobody will notice that you are using Tokina.

 

The Nikon lens cap actually stays better on the lens, while original Tokina cap had tendency to fall off more often, but that just must be me not placing it firmly.

 

This Tokina lens has no compatibility issue with Nikon DSLR.

Interesting, I typically use all Tamron lens caps (77mm) on my Nikkor lenses.

Shun,

 

That's a stellar wedding fisheye image!

 

Is it located in the USA?

 

Lindy

let me guess. Greek Orthodox Churh in SF?

The image I included above was shot at the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Oakland, California, across the Bay from San Francisco: http://www.ascensioncathedral.org

I'm really digging my new Nikon 10.5mm fisheye!