comparison between 10.5, 12 and 17mm lenses

Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
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.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
jklofft said:
Scott,

Thanks for posting these. They're helpful in a decision that I'm trying to make (to sell or keep my 12-24).
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.

Rich
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
5,482
Location
NY
Scott,

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?

Glenn
 

gho

Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
2,556
Location
California
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.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,868
Location
Sudbury, Massachusetts
Rich Gibson said:
jklofft said:
Scott,

Thanks for posting these. They're helpful in a decision that I'm trying to make (to sell or keep my 12-24).
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.

Rich
Rich,

I've decided to stay with the 12-24 for now. I guess I need to practice more :D
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
14,469
Location
Toronto Canada
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
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom