1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

10.5 fisheye vs. 10-20mm

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by DanielD, May 12, 2007.

  1. Today I saw a nice fisheye picture and thought it would be fun to play with a fisheye to do some urban city pictures.
    On the other hand I'm lusting for a Sigma 10-20 for some while now which isn't fisheye'd, which can be good or bad, depending on your current artistic mood. :wink:

    So now I'm contemplating which type of lens would be better. I'm attracted by the huge viewing angle of a fisheye lens but am not sure if I will be happy with the distorted view everytime.
    I know you can de-fish it in PP, but then it may also mean the Sigma would have been the better choice.

    How much picture angle is lost in "de-fishing" (if any)?
    Is the practical viewing angle that wider compared to the 10-20mm?

    I haven't yet seen any side by side comparisons of both lenses on the same scene that could help me decide which one I would prefer, and how a de-fished image would look against a regular 10mm shot of the Simga.

    Has anybody had the chance to play with both?
  2. I have the Sigma now for about 6 months. I bought it because it has some more detail than the 10.5mm. But the 10.5 mm is a real fisheye with an angle of 180. The 10-20 doesn't.
  3. dspeed


    Dec 17, 2006
    Carlsbad, NM
    You know, I've always wondered how you could have a 10.5 mm 'fisheye' with 180 degree coverage and a 10 mm without 180 degree coverage. Isn't the FOV a function of the focal length for a given sensor size?
  4. Doug


    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    good point speedy. I don't get it either. (head scratch)
  5. jaymc

    jaymc Guest

    "Note that the angle of view of a given lens is frequently, and incorrectly, referred to as the angle of coverage, a term which describes the angle of projection by the lens onto the focal plane. Angle of coverage is only a consideration in technical photography involving view camera movements, in which the lens may be required to project an image circle much larger than the film dimensions. In cameras with fixed alignment between the lens and film (or sensor), it can generally be taken for granted that the center of the lens is aligned with the center of the frame, and the that image circle is large enough to cover the frame, and thus angle of coverage is not a consideration for the photographer.
    A circular fisheye lens, as opposed to a full-frame fisheye, is an example of a lens where the angle of coverage has been narrowed relative to the other lenses in that system. In many cases the angle of view of the circular fisheye will be almost exactly the same as the nearest full-frame fisheye; however, the image projected onto the film is rendered circular because the diameter of the image projected is narrower than that needed to cover the widest portion of the film."

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Calculating_a_camera.27s_angle_of_view

    - Jay
  6. I'd be curious to see what the 12-24 would do with the same shot. I sold the 10.5 because the extra 1.5 ield of view wasn't worth the distortion and in outdoor scenes the CA was just not acceptable. I find the 12-24 repeatedly useful especially in scenes and European back streets and crowded venues.

  7. bozola


    Feb 28, 2006
    Seattle WA
    I have the 10-20 Wide Sigma (wigma?) and it's great.

    This is my office which is about 11x11

  8. Yes, and I've used it for just that. A castle in Ireland with bars cutting off an interesting chamber. The 10.5 gave me a full view of the room. Upon reflection though, the extra (and distorted) edges really didn't make much of a difference.

    If you would, please give a person who is always interested in learning an explanation of the real world difference between 10.5mm fisheye and 12mm rectilinear from the field of view standpoint. Obviously I have a misunderstanding of this.

    Thanks, Rich
  9. Thank you very much. Hmmmm... I wonder why they use the term "mm" then....don't answer!! :biggrin:

  10. Most people buy a fish-eye lens for the fish-eye lens effects and, at least, most people did not buy a fish-eye lens so that they can de-fish their images.

    The 12-24mm is a rectilinear super-wide zoom and it is meant for a super-wide image without a curved pin-cushioned corners of a fish-eye.

    You've got to ask yourself what type of images you are going to use most of the time. On the other hand, if there's a project already waiting for you in terms of a fish-eye application, then by all means, get the lens.
  11. Doug


    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    this has been educational. I'm not sure it matters that I learn the techno-babble on this, but it's good to hear it once anyway. I have a 10.5, and a 12-24, but I am still curious about the Sigma 10-20. I think this just makes me a wide angle lens lust freak of nature, right?

    I'm not a huge fisheye fan, but I've taken a few shots that were interesting with it and I am not sure I'm ready to part with mine though.
  12. Excellent thread. Learned a lot. Thanks to all.

  13. Thanks for the answers, they gave me some input to think about.

    Thanks a lot, that helps very much. The info about different de-fishing methods is very valuable, in fact I would be looking for something like the image trends plugin that gives me straight lines while keeping the complete viewing angle!
    This would be cool. :cool: 

    Basically you're right. However the fisheye lens offers you cool fisheye effects if wanted, plus (though through PP) a viewing angle that no rectliniear lens offers that I know of. The only way to get similar results would be stitching several images together with also means some PP effort.

    The currently most difficult question to answer is what type of images I'm after. What I'm after is a big viewing angle. I definitely want to have the possibility of having the de-fished look as per the plugin Edward was showing us.
    But I have also seen some cool fisheye pictures for which the fisheye look worked great so that I may aquire a taste for it. Who knows...

    So my options are rectilinear lens with stitching vs. fisheye with de-fishing plus optional fisheye look. Not yet sure which option would be more convenient.
  14. RexRoy


    Jan 4, 2006
    New York
    anybody knows a similar plug-in / software (hemispheric correction) for Macintosh?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.