which to buy 10.5mm or 10-24mm zoom?

[richard_dulkin]

<p>I can't decide which to buy, the Nikon 10.5mm fish-eye or the 10-24mm zoom. It will be used on a D90 body. I already have the 18 to 105 mm zoom Nikon dx and the 105mm Macro. Which lens is the better choice optically? I will have the DXO module for either lens for correction. The question is whether the zoom 10-24 is really necessary (15mm to 27mm crop) or will the prime 10.5 (16mm crop) do the trick for all the ultra-wide angle shots. It will be used for landscapes, architectural, general purpose and probably close-up work also. All thoughts on the matter will be greatly appreciated.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Get the 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX; it is a far more general-purpose lens.</p>

<p>I have the 10.5mm fisheye. It is a highly specialized lens for occasional use. If you really need one, you should know that by heart and shouldn't be asking about it. The fact that you asked is a good indication that you don't need one.</p>

<p>I also have the earlier 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX. I use that a lot more often then the fisheye.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As Shun says. Fisheye lenses are a one-trick pony (so far I have four of them, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens">link</a>), but ultrawides (as they are called. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens">link</a>) are rectilinear lenses that can be very useful for all kinds of photographs. Indoors, landscapes....</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>The 10.5 fisheye is fun to use in very rare circumstances and of not much use in most situations. Weird analysis but that's the way I feel about mine. As Shun says, if you have to ask you probably really don't want/need one. The perfect lens to try as a weekend rental before you spend the money for a purchase. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Agreed. The fisheye produces a very specific look that can quickly become tiresome if over-used. A rectilinear ultra-wide (like Nikon's 10-24, or its various counterparts from Tokina and Sigma) is wildly more useful in all sorts of situations. It's the difference (especially since you mentioned landscapes and architecture) between a highly stylized look, and a more straight-up capture of what's in front of the camera. Though, at 10mm, you can produce images with very striking perspective effects.<br /><br />I've already got a 10-20, which I really like on a DX body. But there are at least half a dozen lenses I'd purchase before I'd put money into a fisheye. I suppose that if I shot skateboard/snowboard action stuff all day, I'd change my tune ... but I don't! You won't regret the UW zoom.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I owned the 10.5mm DX fisheye, and while it is an outstanding lens, it was only used for less than 5% of my photos. I bought the 10-24mm DX last year and have loved it ever since, even though it too is used for less than 20% of my photos. It is by far the more usable lens of the two, and I like it better than the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 that I had before it. The Nikon 10-24mm DX is a keeper for sure.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am sure that I use the fisheye for well less than 1% of my overall images. Sometimes I shoot a wedding or party and I'll capture a few images with it. That was precisely what I had expected before I bought it.</p>

[richard_dulkin]

<p>Thanks all for your responses they are most appreciated. I WANT the ultra-wide look artistically. I know that BOTH lenses can be CORRECTED to rectilinear (close to it, or better). So disregarding all comments as to usability, OPTICALLY does any one favor one lens over the other for sharpness, contrast, color, etc. I am asking this as I have never seen these two lenses compared to each other. Also, if I use my 105 macro for portraits, which I do, if I step 5 feet closer it is an 85mm, and if I step 5 feet backwards it is a 150mm; a "walking zoom lens." At 10mm or 10.5mm which is the better optically? Second, the "coverage" of the 10 to 24 is that really that much of a plus to buy a zoom over a prime in the ultra-wide range. Again thanks.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>optically, the prime is sharper. so if you really want a fish get a fish.</p>

<p>but here's another reason to get the 10-24: it most likely is better than your kit lens from 18-24, meaning less distortion.</p>

<p>according to photozone, the 10-24 has almost no distortion at 18mm and very little at 24mm: http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545?start=1</p>

<p>the 18-135, otoh, has a considerable amount of distortion at 18mm: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/410-nikkor_18105_3556vr?start=1</p>

<p>that said, there are very few zooms which are as sharp as primes, and the 10.5mm fisheye has a reputation for being one of nikon's sharpest lenses. it also has a fast aperture of 2.8, meaning that if you're willing to de-fish in post, you have an ultrawide which will be very good in low-light situations where the 10-24 wouldn't be due to the variable aperture.</p>

<p>personally, i would probably get the 10-24 if i didnt already have an ultrawide. in general, having a wide zoom range is preferable for landscape, while the 10.5 is extremely wide and may be too wide for some general landscape use. however, a fisheye is well-suited to skateboard or live band shots, or for getting really really close to exaggerate the perspective.</p>

<p> </p>

[hayward]

<p>I had the 10.5mm for a while. It was fun sometimes and pretty sharp.</p>

<p>The correction programs come with their own flaws. The image quality around the edges is bad, or at least was with Nikon NX.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>As many have already pointed out, the 10.5 is rather specialized. As to the correction of the fisheye image to rectilinear, don't expect too much. In addition, it is pretty hard to visualize the correction beforehand, so composition becomes rather difficult.<br>

Here is an image I just took - uncorrected (did correct CA in photoshop)</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And here is the shot corrected automatically with DxOPro V6, a rather substantial amount of the image is lost. There are a few options that will change the appearance of the corrected image - but the stretching at the corners is common to all of them. In other words, get a fisheye if you want to shoot fisheye - and only occasionally want to correct to rectilinear. A UWA will allow some steep perspective without the fisheye barrel distortion - the art is in knowing how to use it.</p><div></div>

[reid_priedhorsky]

<p>Richard, I'd be skeptical that the 10.5 corrected to rectilinear would come out very good. I could be wrong obviously, but before you count on this, find some samples and really examine them.</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>The 10.5 is an extremely sharp lens. When corrected to rectilinear it can give some startling results. Nikon Capture NX2 has a conversion filter that I find gives extremely poor results when doing the conversion while Image Trends Fisheye Hemi gives amazingly excellent results, sample attached.</p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>I found the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye useful for some photography, like this:<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/398833764_sPupQ-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

And this:<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/398830830_dYsye-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Getting to rectilinear via post-processing is likely going to more than make you lose any advantage you get from having a "prime".</p>

<p>Trust us. The fisheye is fun. but for most tasks like the ones you are asking about, the ultrawide is far more useful.</p>

<p>(both pictures taken on an APS-C sensor camera)</p><div></div>

[pictureted]

<p>I concur with getting the 10-24. I also have both and use the zoom much more than the fisheye.<br>

Here are two shots from the Filoli Gardens in Woodside - with 10-24 Zoom (at 10mm) and 10.5<br>

Others shots are available - look at tags.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I had a fisheye lens years ago with film.</p>

<p>I used it for... wait for it... one... yes one... photo.</p>

<p>Get the wide zoom.</p>

[markjordan]

<p>The 10-24 for sure. Look at Sigma and Tokina as well though. I use a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and have a blast with it as well as it taking excellent photos. I use the zoom portion of it often, so I am not always at a solid 12 or 24 mm.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I debated about basically the same thing and ended up with the tokina 11-16, and I'm happy. It's hard to appreciate what it's like to use a really wide lens without actually using one. I think it's unlikely you'll regret getting a wide zoom, and if it turns out you really like the really wide you'll then have a better feeling for what to expect with the fisheye.</p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>I'm coming to this discussion late, and probably my comment won't be read. I have both lenses and they are not equivalents at all and you would not use one as a substitute for the other. It all depends on your point of view. I happen to really like the 10.5 for the things that I want depicted that way and you can't get there with any of the super-wides.<br>

I use the 10.5 much more than others have suggested. Tracking lens use with Lightroom, I shoot nearly 10% of my shots with the 10.5, about 80% with two super-wides and the rest with two longer lenses. I use the 10.5 much more than the 70-300 I have in the bag -- and I like that lens.</p>

[richard_dulkin]

<p>Thank you Virginia, it was read and appreciated. I did buy the 10-24, which is only really usable on the dx sensor cameras (I now also have a d700 and it is usable on this camera which as a limit box for the sensor size), so now it can be used on both. I went with the 10-24 over the 10.5 in that I do mainly studio work and even the 10-24 cover just to much, but it is a great lens. Everyone was right in that I use it less than 10% of the finished images. Thanks again for you input, Richard</p>