Fisheye vs wide angle and others

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,<br>

I've been doing a lot of research before any kind of buying to make sure I'll be happy with what I have, but I still need some professional/hands-on advice.</p>

<p>I'm getting a Nikon D90, and for lenses I'm looking at 5 classes of lens: fisheye, wide angle, standard, telephoto, and (possibly) a mirror. I almost certainly won't be looking to buy a flash due to the types of photos I currently take.</p>

<p>To begin with, I'm having a tough time deciding on getting either a fisheye or a wide angle lens. The fisheyes I've seen price between $350 and $650 (all 180* fullframe lenses), and wide angles between $400 and $650 (100-115* at widest), so not much difference except the FOV. The thing is I specifically Want the very wide FOV, and the fisheye effect would be cool (at least for a while, possibly). The wide angles would enable panoramic stitching, but are much narrower FOV. (Also, I suppose I might be able to get a wide-angle converter for a wide-angle lens - thoughts?)</p>

<p>The other main problem deciding that I'm having is with the telephotos - I do a lot of landscape and etc shots where something around 300mm would be very useful (especially with Nikon's 1.5X crop). Here though the prices are between $125 (iffy, I imagine) and $530, with 400mm to 500mm up to $700. The thing is if the quality of the lens is enough to outshine what I'd get out of a 500mm mirror (or even 800 or 1000mm), I probably wouldn't bother with the mirror lens. The only other thing here was I remember reading that a certain filter (not UV) might cut through atmospheric haze and reduce the consequential noise - though I can't remember which it is.</p>

<p>If there's any major concerns/opinions/advice, I'd be quite grateful, especially a direct referral or link to a review. :)<br>

I'm not a brand snob, I'll take whichever lens will perform the best for the money I'm going to spend (which I imagine for 3-5 lenses with the body will probably put the pricetag around $2000).</p>

<p>Thanks for any and all help!<br>

Robert</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of landscape and etc shots where something around 300mm would be very useful (especially with Nikon's 1.5X crop). Here though the prices are between $125 (iffy, I imagine) and $530, with 400mm to 500mm up to $700. The thing is if the quality of the lens is enough to outshine what I'd get out of a 500mm mirror (or even 800 or 1000mm), I probably wouldn't bother with the mirror lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you need to do more research and digging...for example, 300, 400mm for landscapes? Mirror lenses are usually of lower quality than non mirror lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fisheyes I've seen price between $350 and $650 (all 180* fullframe lenses), and wide angles between $400 and $650 (100-115* at widest), so not much difference except the FOV.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>FOV <strong><em>IS </em></strong>the main difference between Wide angle, fisheye, tele, and standard lenses. In short, FOV is what sets them apart...</p>

[craigd]

<p>If you get a fisheye, make sure it's intended specifically for 1.5x crop cameras rather than full-frame models. A 16mm full-frame fisheye loses most of its dramatic curvature (which is at its strongest around the edges) when cropped down by a 1.5x sensor. You'll be wanting a fisheye of about 10mm to get the proper effect.</p>

<p>Wide-angle lenses are actually poor choices for stitched panoramas because of their strong perspective distortion and typically soft corners. On a 1.5x camera I don't think I'd want to make a stitched panorama with anything wider than 28mm.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you are near a camera shop...try to see if the AF 10.5mm DX Fisheye Nikkor lens might be a tool for you. It's a fairly wide view, designed for the DX sensor camera body (the D90.)</p>

<p>Mirror lenses tend to be good if you get a Nikkor one. Second-party companies try, but the folks at Nikon seem to have figured out how to make a decent Reflex-Nikkor lens.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[iwong]

<p>What currency are you talking about? $400 to $650 may be ok for a wide angle lens, as long as it isn't constant f/2.8 max aperture (like the 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, etc.) but $700 for a 400/500mm telephoto? Add an extra zero at your money figure to be more realistic, unless you are talking about used and manual focus, and even that would be a stretch. </p>

[joshuasigar]

<blockquote>

<p>To begin with, I'm having a tough time deciding on getting either a fisheye or a wide angle lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get the wide angle. I had 10mm fisheye and 10-24 (for my Nikon D90). I had one fisheye shot for every 10,000 of wide angle shots. (I made that numbers up but somewhat it's probably true.) I sold the fisheye sometime ago.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fisheye is much less allround usable, and when starting out, I would stay away from it.<br>

Apart from the D90, do you have anything yet? If not, my recommendation would be: get the D90 with the 18-105VR kitlens, and get started. Then, figure out which other lenses you may need. For examples, for landscapes, for example, long telelenses do not make that much sense most of the time, and a wide angle does. A second lens to really consider while starting out is the 35mm f/1.8 DX - very nice, fast, small and cheap.<br>

Getting a very wide angle is nice, but be sure: you have to learn how to use it good creatively. Getting ultra-wides to get more into the shot typically makes for fairly boring photos. Wide angles are lenses you need to learn how to use. If you want to get one right away, consider the Nikon 10-24, Tokina 12-24 (the 11-16 is very nice but somewhat limited) or the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. The Tokina and Sigma are affordable and good. The Nikon more expensive but more versatile too. But, I'd wait and first get started with the 18mm end of a kit lens and see how it works for you.</p>

<p>Also, one more thing to consider: well-done flash with an additional speedlight looks vastly better than the "flash look" most people think of. In many situation, natural light just isn't enough or not good enough, and proper use of flash (indirect typically) delivers a much better photo. So do not yet rule out a SB600 or SB700.<br>

Lastly, wide angle converters for wide angle lenses? No. Forget converters like that, quality isn't worth it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>In my experience, a fisheye is a lens you'll use for just one image every now and again. Not an everyday lens unless you shoot extreme sports. </p>

<p>Ultra-wides are useful for a pretty small percentage of my images, ymmv.</p>

<p>For most of us, some kind of 16/17/18-something will satisfy most of your shooting needs.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I actually found an off-brand (Peleng) 8mm f/3.5 to be quite useful on my 300D/Digital Rebel (1.6x crop), although I admit there weren't a lot of EF-s wide alternatives at the time I got it. I quite like the effect even on full frame/film, but I know people who hate it. As for "getting it all in", this <i>is</i> sometimes why it's useful - a wrap-around view of mountains or an overhead view of a table (camera suspended on the end of a tripod) kind of works. For the former, the effect doesn't work in a small print - you have to press your nose up to an enlargement - but then you get the same problem with ultrawide rectilinear lenses (which are also distorted unless you recreate the angle of view in the print). Sure, you can do the lens-next-to-the-cat's-nose distorted shots as well. I've not yet got a fish-eye for my D700, and I kind of miss it - anyone want to give me a 6mm f/2.8? I do use my 14-24 a fair bit, though, probably more than I ever did the fish-eye; I won't say the fish-eye is necessarily better, but I wouldn't rule it out. Don't forget image processing of the result, either.<br>

<br>

As for the mirror lens, remember you'll have bokeh with a hole in it. It's fine if you're shooting the moon (not playing cards) or birds against a plain sky, but if you're thinking of wildlife in scenery, I'd think again - the out-of-focus areas will look awful. There's a reason everyone uses big lumps of glass. Except the people who <i>are</i> doing astrophotography, and then there's a lot to be said for a telescope with a T-mount adaptor; at least I hope so, because I've been lusting after a 10" Dobsonian for a while now... (Yes, I know I'd be better with a tracking mount, but it's mostly for looking through - photography is a bonus.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>"Don't forget image processing of the result, either."<br>

<br>

- to de-fisheye it, I meant (in case I wasn't clear). Depending on how you're viewing it, you might prefer a cylindrical projection to a rectilinear one anyway, for an ultrawide.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I would not buy a fish eye unless you absolutely know that's what you want. A fisheye and an ultrawide are not interchangeable in my experience. Many people buy a fisheye, use it a few months, get tired of it, and resell on e Bay. <br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To corroborate Kent's story, in spite of my advocation of fish-eyes, I did prioritise getting a wideangle over getting a fisheye when I switched systems. At the same price, I'd get the rectilinear lens, but a cheap fisheye has some merits. As I said, don't forget that there's software which can (partly) undo the fisheye effect.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I had the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye, and while it was a fun lens to mess around with, $600 was too much money for a lens I hardly used, and it was sold on ebay after I got back from London. The Nikon 10-24mm is far more usable for me.</p>

<p><em>Chihuly Sculpture at London's South Kensington Victoria & Albert Museum, Nikon 10.5mm:</em></p>

<p><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/382482382_bmKvi-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>just to reiterate what others have said, an ultrawide is far more useful than a fisheye lens. i would definitely get that first. as to what lens, there are many choices: the aforementioned nikon 10-24, the sigma 10-20, the tokina 11-16, and the venerable, inexpensive, optically and build quality-wise excellent tokina 12-24 (which is what i have). too many choices, perhaps. i think the nikon is a bit overpriced, as usual, but it does have the best range. however, it's no better than the sigma @10mm and may be worse. conversely, the tokina 11-16 has the best IQ but a very limited range. at $400 new, the tokina 12-24 (version I) is an outstanding value, and its served me well for almost four years. there have been times when i wish it went to 10mm, but that's been mitigated to a large degree by its goodness at 20-24mm. at f/8-11, its just so sharp and contrasty.</p>

<p>if you insist on a fisheye for panoramas, i'd probably take a look at the sunex (www.superfisheye.com), with the caveat that, once again, this is a specialty lens which will sit around collecting dust for most of its existence, unless you really shoot a lot--and i mean a lot--of panoramas.</p>

<p>as far as a tele, your best bet is either the nikon 70-300 VR or new 28-300 VR. with a DX body, the 28-300 makes sense if your only other lens is an UWA. otherwise, the 70-300 VR costs 1/2 as much and should be fine for general landscape stuff as well as daytime sports and outdoor portraits. for your budget, you're not going to get anything longer and better, and forget about the mirror lenses if image quality and portability mean anything to you.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Wow responses!</p>

<p>I do an incredible amount of panoramas, by far the majority. One of the main reasons I'm interested in the wide-angle/fisheye option is that those provide the vertical FOV range as well as horizontal, whereas most of my panoramas are distinctly horizontal (due to the necessity of stitching).</p>

<p>As for mirror lenses, I'm not planning to do any wildlife photography with it; pretty much only photos where there's only one point of focus (all parts of the image are similarly-distanced from the camera). So I Hope bokeh won't be as much an issue as for wildlife photography.</p>

<p>@Andrew Garrard: thanks for the suggestion about fisheye processing!</p>

<p>Thanks for the sugestions at specific lenses:<br />for the Pelang 8mm: it looks like it's for FX, but doesn't say what the FOV would be for a DX; it's cheap though<br />for the Sunex 5.6mm and Pelang: unfortunately both Circular fisheyes - I don't know if I'd want to postprocess<br />every picture I take into fullframe rectangular.<br />most of the other wide-angles I had listed already, but I'll give them more emphasis now that they've been recommended.</p>

<p>As for the telephotos: should I only be looking at the really expensive 300mms then?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses!</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>most of my panoramas are distinctly horizontal (due to the necessity of stitching).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you can make multiple-row panoramas. I've done panos with up to about 20 images in multiple rows. Doing this with a roughly standard-length lens will produce far better results than stitching wide-angle shots. More simply, you can also make panos with the camera turned in portrait mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Pelang 8mm: it looks like it's for FX, but doesn't say what the FOV would be for a DX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would almost fill the frame, but you would probably have some small black areas in the corners. A 10mm fisheye would be right for DX.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>@Craig Dickson: Oh, I do (to both of your suggestions); they're still usually 4:1 or more horizontal:vertical though, due to the extreme difficulty in stitching sky (as well as aiming the camera downward in some cases).<br>

Thanks for the comment about the proper minimum angle for a fisheye on a DX :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Robert/Craig: confirmed, you do get black corners on the Peleng, although you don't have to crop much of the image to get rid of them - I'd be interested to know what Photoshop's content-aware fill did with it; sadly I only have CS4. There's a review of one used on a Canon crop body (whose sensor is slightly smaller than the Nikons, so the black corners are admittedly also a bit smaller) at photozone.de. I got it because I found myself shooting with the camera at an angle even with a borrowed 14mm so that I could get the field of view I wanted across the diagonal. 14mm on full frame is usually wide enough for me, however; now I'd want one for my D700 mostly for the effect. Had there been a cheap 10mm rectilinear option at the time I got it for my crop body, I'd have got one. I'm not vouching for how sharp the Peleng is, but it's usable, and I got one when they were about 2/3 of the current price (like all other lenses). Had I not leant it to someone recently, I'd have been using it for the Perseid meteors.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>ok, dumb question here: if you have a sufficiently wide-angle lens, isn't it the same thing as a rectilinear fisheye?<br>

for example: if you put the 14-24 at 16 mm, won't it yield the same results as the 16mm fisheye?<br>

I'm interested in this because I have seen some pretty cool sports photos done with a fisheye, for example <a href="http://grahamwatson.com/wallpapers/assortedwall/wallpapers/2009/flan1024x768.htm">http://grahamwatson.com/wallpapers/assortedwall/wallpapers/2009/flan1024x768.htm</a> and <a href="http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/#/PORTFOLIO/PORTFOLIO/5">http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/#/PORTFOLIO/PORTFOLIO/5</a><br>

At the moment, I'm struggling with just how much $$$ I need to buy all these pro lenses. As The logical kit would be an ultrawide zoom plus a long zoom (16-35 + 70-200) plus a 50 prime, but as I am really enjoying event photography, a 24-70 makes a lotta sense and I just cannot justify 70-200 + 24-70 + 16-35 + fisheye...aarrgghhhh! I think I remember a recent thread lamenting how one can possibly afford this hobby...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Allan,</p>

<p>I think that a rectilinear wide angle lens keeps straight lines straight (except for distortion), and a fisheye lens curves them on purpose. So... rectilinear fisheye? Is there any such thing?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>if you put the 14-24 at 16 mm, won't it yield the same results as the 16mm fisheye?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all.</p>

<p>Nikon's 16mm full-frame fisheye covers a much wider angle than the 14-24mm/f2.8 @ 14mm.</p>

[joe_mezzanini1]

<p>As far as a wide or fish eye is concerned - I strongly suggest a 14mm instead of the 10mm. I have and love both - but you will get a LOT of use from the 14mm. It's an amazing lens and well worth the high price. The 10mm you will use infrequently and even then you have to be "feeling it" when you shoot with it. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun wrote: Nikon's 16mm full-frame fisheye covers a much wider angle than the 14-24mm/f2.8 @ 14mm.<br>

<br>

Quite true, since a fish-eye usually covers at least 180 degrees across the diagonal, which would need a 0mm rectilinear lens.<br>

<br>

You can work out the field of view of a rectilinear lens by imagining that everything reaching the sensor(/film) goes through a point at the middle of the lens, at the distance from the sensor(/film) of its focal length.<br>

<br>

Slightly subverting the topic... I've never been as clear what the focal length of a fish-eye lens means. Fish-eyes exist with different projections (for example, the Samyang vs the Nikkors). I know a longer focal length means that a solid angle of the scene corresponds to a larger area in the image - as with rectilinear lenses - but I don't know if there's an obvious geometrical definition of the view presented by, for example, a 15mm fish-eye.<br>

<br>

I know a 15mm puts 180 degrees across the full-frame diagonal; 8mm puts 180 degrees across the short axis (a circle completely contained in the frame). A 6mm produces a similar image from 220 degrees instead of 180 (IIRC). Various small fish-eyes exist for crop sensors. But, given (say) a 30mm fish-eye, how would the image appear - either in terms of where the 180 degree circle ends up, or how large the contents is? (I can double the size it would be for a 15mm and suspect I'm right, but I'd like to have a sense of the geometry.)</p>