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!

comparison between 10.5, 12 and 17mm lenses

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Scott Sherman, May 12, 2005.

  1. I was on vacation in Canada and stopped in to Buchart Gardens. I took the same shots with three lenses that I had on hand. They were really just snap shots for an overview of one of the garden areas. When I took them, I was not thinking about doing a comparison so the f stops are different and they were PP'd in a rush so they are not the same saturation, sharpness etc.

    I saw a thread discussing the difference between the lenses. I posted the images to that thread. It occured to me that others may enjoy seeing the difference. The photos posted in the other thread will probably get lost at the tail of the thread so I am re-posting them here for anyone who might care to see the difference.

    This is a 10.5 fisheye
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    This is the same 10.5 defished in NC 4.2.1
    View attachment 8728

    Here is a 12-24 set to 12mm. I was using a ND filter plate and the attachment caused vignetting so I had to do a bit of cloning to fill in the dark edges but it still works for comarison of FOV
    View attachment 8729

    This next one is the 17-55mm set at 17mm
    View attachment 8730

    Anyway, the photos are not very good but it is a representation of the area of coverage of the different lens and settings. Ignore DOF, sharpening and color differences please. This is totally not a controlled or scientific comparison as I wasn't even considering it at the time of the shoot.

    Hope this is somewhat helpful to some who wondered.
  2. Scott,

    Thanks for posting these. They're helpful in a decision that I'm trying to make (to sell or keep my 12-24).
  3. I've the 10.5 and the 12-24 and sadly, I'm quite disappointed in the 10.5. The extra 1.5mm is not worth the distortion and chromatic aberration. For a wide lens the 12-24, to me, is exceptional.

  4. Tosh


    May 6, 2005

    You're a lucky fellow to be vacationing in a photography-friendly location like Vancouver Island! I visited there in my pre-digital days. Butchart Gardens is very colorful, sort of a constant Kodak picture spot. The rest of the island is beautiful as well. So, when do we see the photos?

  5. Love the 17mm shot. I had fun at Buchart Gardens while on a motorcycle trip a few years ago. My wife wasn't too keen on the motorcycle but loved the Gardens.
  6. immage

    immage Guest

    in my opinion the 12-24 show's a better picture
  7. gho


    Feb 7, 2005
    Saturation is awsome on the 17mm shot. I don't really like the 10.5mm though, even after de-fisheyeing it - a little too much distortion for my taste.

    RE: vignetting - can't you use PS to fix that without cloneing? ACR has a thing that allows you to correct for it, though I've only briefly tried it.
  8. Gregory,
    Normally you can reduce some corner vignetting with a quick fix like what you described. In this case, I really messed up by attaching a bracket to my 12mm lens designed to hold plates of glass with ND filter tinting. I had never used it on the 12mm and did not reallize that if completely cut off the sides of the image. I only had that one image to use as a comparison and wanted to show a quick comparison of three lenses. It was not really intended to be a carefull comprehensive comparison. As i mentioned, when I took the shots I was not even thinking about posting the comparison. I saw a post by someone who was interested in the 10.5 and wondered if it was a good lens to have if one had a 12mm lens.

    I hope this was not confusing, as it was only meant to show the difference in some of the details in the different lenses.

    If there is an interest, I could do a more carefull comparison at the same depth of field etc.
  9. Rich,

    I've decided to stay with the 12-24 for now. I guess I need to practice more :D 
  10. Thanks so much for this. I have the 17-55 and just love it but was thinking of getting the 12-24. I don't have TOO much opportunity at the moment to use a 12mm, and still have to experiment more with the 17mm end of what I've got. I think 12mm is more suited to large landscape vistas, rather than buildings/people because of the distortion. Thanks for the comparisons because it tells me a lot about each lens. Cheers, Sandi
  11. jfrancis


    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    Nice comparison. I have both the 10.5 and 12-24 and love them both for different reasons. The latter sepnds a lot of time on my camera.
  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.