Am I Crazy?

I don't have the fisheye Jeff, but I've heard it is not as sharp as the 12-24DX (which I do have.)

 

Just on general principles I'd have to directly answer your question and say 'Yes, you are crazy" :lol: . Of course, ALL of us here are to one extent or another, aren't we :?: :?:

I have a friend with the 10.5 and it is really quite an interesting lens. I borrowed it to do some interior shots of our house when we put it up for sale last year and it was a dream to use, although a bit strange in trying to keep things straight. I did not see any sharpness issues, but I really was not looking for such either. Having not used the 12-24 I can't compare, but if you would like I could send you a few images from my house this evening. One thing for sure, you would not have the issue of "zooming out" to 15-17mm now, would you :?: :?:

Let me know if you would like the images. Either respond here, drop me a PM or an email.

 

I have it and hardly ever use it. NC does a good job rectalinearizing the image but there is lots of distortion at the edges. With cloudy skies and sharp edges I get beaucoup CA as well. I don't shoot abstract images, etc. Bottom line I would not purchase it again knowing what I know now. Of course, that messes up my chances at selling, however I never would sell this one without someone trying it out first.

The single use I have for it is when on holiday in castles, ruins when the entrance(s) is/are blocked. I stick the camera through the bars and can get a clear shot of the place.

Rich

 

I have both lenses and would never give up the 12-24 for the 10.5. The fish-eye effect is nice for some shots, and I like to keep it in my bag for those. However, de-fishing in NC is no substitute for the 12 mm end of the 12-24.

 

10.5 mm Fisheye at the Horseshoe Curve

I have the fisheye and I am waiting for the 12-24. I used my fisheye Mother's Day weekend at the Horsehoe Curve in Altoona, PA. That was the first time I had pulled it out of my bag since receiving it on my birthday in October. It's a fun lens, but it I rarely use it. Strangely enough, I wouldn't sell it either, simply because of this past weekend. Can you think of a better lens to use while standing in the middle of a 'U' shaped man made architectural wonder that spans more than 2 miles? I just wish I had positioned myself more carefully. I am going back in August to compose better photos.

Crystall

 

Fisheye is just something else. I wouldn'T use it as a 12-24 substitute but if I was you, I'd buy it. It's a great lens, great effects. I love it.

A fisheye is not for everybody... If you like PJ, you need that lens. If you shoot your kids and landscapes, you don't need it.

Now, since you don't use 12 to 17mm, just sell the lens and never think about it. Nothing bad about that. Back in film days, I rarely needed wider then 24mm (lots of people in this situation).

 

The local camera shop's guru has repeatedly told me they have had complaints about the 10.5mm, especially with CA and uncorrectable distortion. I was there to buy one they had in stock and they talked me out of it. I like the creativeness one can have with that lens, but after reviewing a lot of shots taken with it that are posted on Pbase, I doubt I'd use it much.

I do agree with you about the 12-24. It is a very good lens that I just don't use much. I find the 17-35 much more fitting to what I like to shoot when using a wide angle lens.

Gene

 

here are some examples of 10.5 vs 12 vs 17-55

I didn't think when I took these they were going to be used as a comparison so the DOF is different as they were shot at different f stops and the pp editing is not the same. But it gives you a sense of the difference of FOV between a 10.5, a 12mm and a 17mm shot with a D70. These are not good examples of the quality of the lens, just the width of the scene they produce.

This first shot is a 10.5mm shot in fisheye.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is the same image but defished in Nikon Capture.

View attachment 8542

Here is a 12mm fov from a 12-24mm lens. I had some vignetting in this one from a ND filter plate attachment, so I did a little quick cloning to bring some details into the effected areas. sorry, it's all I had for comparison. Again, please ignore the imperfections.

View attachment 8543

This is a 17-55mm lens set at 17mm, for comparison shot from the exact same spot. This is just for a FOV comparison so ignore imperfections.

View attachment 8544

 

IMHO using the 10.5 fisheye as substitute for a rectilinear ultrawide misses the point. There's too much distortion to try to correct, the defish function in NC leaves the edges horribly soft and distorted, to me the fisheye effect is preferable.

I haven't used my 10.5DX much, I find it a very difficult lens to use. But I've seen some great shots taken with it (Bruce Lynne over at DPR comes to mind). It seems that to use it effectively you have to embrace the distortion and make it a part of your composition.

 

Very true Jeff. I don't yet have the 10.5, but I have allot of experience with the ols AIS Nikkor 16mm and the newer Sigma 15mm fisheyes. The key to the composition is being able to make use of the distortion effect. I hope no one expects a fisheye lens to be sharp or without some sort of CA.