Sigma vs. Nikon Fisheye

I am interested in picking up a fisheye for my N80. The Nikkor

fisheye is pretty expensive, but it looks like the fisheye made by

Sigma is roughly half the cost.

 

The quality of the Sigma worries me though. I've always bought

Nikon lenses, but seeing as the fisheye would probably get limited

use, I thought the Sigma might be a good alternative. (I've checked

on the Russian fisheyes, but I don't think they'd meter with the

N80, and seem to cost roughly the same as the Sigma.)

 

I searched through other threads, but I haven't heard a definitive

comparison.

I'd go with the Sigma. You probably wont sell enough photos with the Nikkor fisheye to justify they price they want for it. I use several Sigma lenses professionally (17-35 2.8/4 and 24-70 2.8, 28-105 2.8/4) and have no problems with quality or sharpness.

I have the Nikon 16mm f/2.8 AFD fisheye at work, and a couple of my co-workers have the equivalent Sigma fisheye (I think it's a 17mm). I've seen their work with it, and if it were my money I'd buy the Sigma. I've never shot test charts with either, but the results look pretty good on the Sigma for half the price.

The Sigma 14mm f2.8 'D' lens also works well, but it is better when using a tripod to keep everything level.

I see the same argument a lot-- why buy a good fisheye? You won't use it much. Well, I went ahead and bought a Nikon 16mm f/2.8 AF-D fisheye and it rocks. It's superbly sharp from edge to edge and remarkably resistant to flare and ghosting. If I had a mediocre fisheye, I guess I wouldn't use it much either because most of the discount fisheyes flare a lot, which is a major pain for a lens that has a 180 degree angle of view, and they're soft at the edges.

 

If you're looking for a brief novelty, buy one of those fisheye adapters or rent the Nikon, but if you want a quality lens, go for the Nikon. I found a used example in great condition with a couple of scuffs on the barrel for significantly less than a new lens. I can only say that the quality of the Nikon 16mm is stunning and comparable to Nikon's other top lenses.<div></div>

Here is a view taken with a Sigma 14mm wide (but not a fisheye) lens:<div></div>

Thanks for all of the replies. The ultra wide idea is a good one, but I'm looking more for the wild distortion that the fisheye causes for right now, but I'd probably find more ways to use it.

 

To those that have actually seen the Sigma does it have problems with ghosting/flare like was mentioned?

 

Based on the replies I think I might go with a grey market Nikkor, but it's still up in the air.

I agree with Barry, the Nikon AF lens is truly good, highly flare-resistant and and uniformly sharp. And it´s a great compact travel lens, more versatile than you´d expect.

My 5 cents

Karl Johan

Sigma's 17-35 which I use is a beautiful lens but isn't a fisheye! They've recently brought out a 15-30 which might be worth a look. I've upgraded all my Nikon lenses to Sigma's EX range - they may not say Nikon on the barrel, but the quality is superb and sharp. So I'd recommend Sigma everytime, unless, and only unless, its someone else's money you're spending!!!