Fisheye - driving myself insane.....

[Lil Judd]

My sister is coming for a visit with my nephews in a few weeks. :smile:

Reason is party family issues for her. My littlest nephew is having a hard time with things so I wanted to get a "fun" lens for him & I to play with. So I came up with the idea of a fisheye lens.

I have the 17-55 F/2.8, the 70-200 VR f/2.8 & a Lester Dine 105mm macro, but I think a fisheye would really amuse my 12 year old nephew on my D200.

Since I have not ever worked with a fisheye & am not sure how much I'd end up using it I don't want to spend a fortune on it.

A, What would be the difference in shots in between a 10,5 & a 16mm fisheye? After all, the 10,5 is a true DX lens, so a true fisheye on the D200. The 16mm would be more like a 24mm "fisheye" & not have a lot of "effect". Photos representing would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to e-mail me examples or refer me to your web sites with such photos to keep photos down here.

B, zoom fisheye - any thoughts?

C, what brands other than Nikon would you recommend?

Another reason I want to go cheap is I'm considering getting "the beast" as well before he comes for the visit with his older brother & mother. I could skip the "beast" & just go for a really good fisheye.....

What would you do? I'm really at a loss as I've not ever worked with one. I shoot normally mostly flowers, horses, wildlife (birds) & at times landscape...

Thanks,

Lil

 

[BourbonCowboy]

I'd suggest getting the Nikon 10.5 fisheye. They're a lot of fun, and if you get tired of it, you'll easily be able to get most of your money back.

 

[blw777]

Here's one that was taken with a 16/f2.8 on DX: http://images.blw.net/gallery/slides/DSC_2479-edited.html
One can barely tell that it's a fisheye.

Here's one that was taken with the 10.5/f2.8 DX lens (of course, on DX):
http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Yosemite/slides/DSC_3210-fish-hill.html

And this one too, which is a bit more emphatic about the fisheye-ness:

http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Yosemite/slides/DSC_4284.html

 

[Lil Judd]

Thanks Mark, they're really hard to locate right now....

Hi Brian, thanks for posting those for me. I have been concerned in regards to the 16mm not being fisheye enough. Have considered the 10-17 Tokina but am concerned for AF & IQ.

I visited your gallery - very nice. Have you ever shot a flower or a garden with the 10,5mm? I do shoot a lot of flowers & have ideas but don't know if it's my "vision" or just "imagination" that I'll be able to do closeups of flowers with some "fun" distortions with it? Any thoughts?

Lil

 

[Chris101]

... zoom fisheye - any thoughts? ...

Not many third party lenses interest me, but I really want to play with that lens!

 

[weiran]

AF and IQ isn't really a huge consideration with fish eye lenses IMO, the 10.5mm Nikkor is very soft (and I mean very) in the edges and it doesn't have AF-S either being of the conventional screw driven lens, but its still produces fantastic pictures.

I'm also very interested in the Tokina but its had mixed reviews, and at £300 for both the Nikon and Tokina its not something I can buy just for a laugh!

 

[Chayelle]

Hi Lil...
I truly love my fisheye.
I do flowers, landscape, animals anything I can with the lens.
It is fantastic!!
And, if you want a really wide lens it does that too...

It is really worth getting. And I don't believe the 16mm fisheye really works
as you might want on your digital camera. (what I have been told, anyway)

 

[bozola]

Here is one vote for the SIGMA 10-20. I know you said Nikon, but I have this lens and am ALWAYS amazed at the wiiide range.

 

[Haibane]

The Sigma 8 fisheye first got me interested in fisheye. The 16mm fisheye by them is not bad, but only on FF. the 10.5 seems near ideal for the 1.5x crop factor IMO

 

[weiran]

What makes you say this? I have the 10.5 and it is not soft.

I believe you or someone else posted images on here and the 100% crops of the corners were very soft and CA prone. But like I said its not overly noticeable and doesn't detract from the lens that much.

 

[weiran]

Here is one vote for the SIGMA 10-20. I know you said Nikon, but I have this lens and am ALWAYS amazed at the wiiide range.

Its rectilinear though, not fish eye like the Nikon 10.5 or Tokina 10-17,

 

[blw777]

Hi Brian, thanks for posting those for me. I have been concerned in regards to the 16mm not being fisheye enough. Have considered the 10-17 Tokina but am concerned for AF & IQ.

I visited your gallery - very nice. Have you ever shot a flower or a garden with the 10,5mm? I do shoot a lot of flowers & have ideas but don't know if it's my "vision" or just "imagination" that I'll be able to do closeups of flowers with some "fun" distortions with it? Any thoughts?

Yes, I use the 10.5mm on flowers quite a bit:
http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Flowers/slides/DSC_0557-fisheye-bouquet.html
http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Flowers/slides/DSC_9005.html (lighting on this one is terrible, but I learned a lot from it, and I sure can't blame the lens)
and http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Flowers/slides/DSC_8689-orange-tulips.html

I have others too, but they're not where I can get my hands on them at the moment.

 

[italy74]

Hi guys,
I don't think I got the point. I still don't understand which is the difference. Fisheye, DX or FF means a 180° / 120° angle of view. I really can't link it correctly with focal lenghts, nor understand which kind of utility has the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom. I'm neither sure Lil got it completely.
Which is the REAL, practical difference between a 8mm, 10.5, 16, or 10-17?
Thanks in advance

 

[blw777]

AF and IQ isn't really a huge consideration with fish eye lenses IMO, the 10.5mm Nikkor is very soft (and I mean very) in the edges and it doesn't have AF-S either being of the conventional screw driven lens, but its still produces fantastic pictures!

It does produce excellent images, at least as good as the nut aiming the camera in this case.

I will probably just be told (again) that I have a good sample, but I certainly CANNOT substantiate the claim that the Nikkor is soft in the corners. In fact, my experience suggests that precisely the opposite is the case.

What I HAVE experienced is that about 30% of the time, Nikon Capture produces truly BAD results in the corners when one DEFISHES one of these images. I have not tried Capture NX, and some have told me that it does this better. Bjorn Rorslett says that PTlens also is more reliable. I do not defish much so I cannot comment on either of those options. But I did a fair amount of defishing when I got the lens while I was learning how to use it. The bad defished corners didn't take a critical eye to detect...

As far as AF is concerned... it's so relevant that I have the following story: One time I took the fisheye out at night. When I looked at the images the next day, I discovered that the AF had been set to MANUAL - so in fact I hadn't been focusing it at all! The images turned out fine, because DOF on this lens is monstrous. This was one of those: http://70.88.168.142/ngallery/Landscapes/slides/DSC_7101-on-the-beach.html
(In case it's not obvious, this last bit is sarcastic.)

 

[blw777]

The Sigma 8 fisheye first got me interested in fisheye. The 16mm fisheye by them is not bad, but only on FF. the 10.5 seems near ideal for the 1.5x crop factor IMO

I'm in the process of acquiring one of the 8mm's myself. Unfortunately the new f/3.5 version is a G type, so I guess I'll have to buy a new (used) film body just to deal with it. I should have gotten one of the older f/4 models, as they are D and have aperture rings. (I just thought to ask this of Sigma after I'd ordered it... Ooops...)

The Sigma full frame rectangular fisheye is a 15/f2.8 - the 16/f2.8 is a Nikkor. Results-wise it is nearly indistinguishable from the Nikkor. If for whatever reason I end up shooting predominantly 36x24 (either I end up doing more film, or there's a 36x24 DSLR), I will get one of the three (eg Sigma 15/f2.8 AF, Nikkor 16/f2.8 AFD, Nikkor 16/f3.5 AIS).

10.5mm certainly seems to work well on DX for me.

 

[Lil Judd]

There's a huge difference in how the lenses will act on a dslr

Hi guys,
I don't think I got the point. I still don't understand which is the difference. Fisheye, DX or FF means a 180° / 120° angle of view. I really can't link it correctly with focal lenghts, nor understand which kind of utility has the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom. I'm neither sure Lil got it completely.
Which is the REAL, practical difference between a 8mm, 10.5, 16, or 10-17?
Thanks in advance

Actually I do get the point. So don't add me to this. Fisheye is a very special type of lens & it doesn't work like a regular wide angle. The practical difference in a 8mm, 10,5mm DX, 16mm or zoom 10-17mm is like this on different cameras.

FF film camera. 8 mm is a 8mm - while on the D200 or any Nikon dslr it will actually be a 14mm.

10,5mm DX is made specifically for the dslr cameras & has a 180 degree view which translates into the equivalent of a 16mm on a FF film camera.

Now the 16mm fisheye, developed by nikon for FF film cameras is a fisheye, but on a dslr it actually becomes more of a 24mm fisheye & thus the fisheye effect becomes very small.

Now, if I have it right,..... the Tokina 10-17mm is a fisheye (in difference to the 10-20mm mentioned by others) it's just that the zoom allows for more or less fisheye effect. I think it can be used on both FF & dslr cameras as there's both a Nikon & a Canon one, but since Canon actually seem to have some crop cameras as well.......

Anyhow, there's a huge difference in what the lenses do on a dslr over a FF camera & that's because of the crop factor & because of the DX lens which is specifically developed for dslr cameras.

Hope this helps.

Lil:smile:

 

[Lil Judd]

It is really worth getting. And I don't believe the 16mm fisheye really works
as you might want on your digital camera. (what I have been told, anyway)

Thanks Cheryle, glad to hear you get so much use out of it. About the 16mm - that's what I've been thinking as well....

Lil:smile:

 

[Lil Judd]

Thanks Edward for weighing in with this information

What makes you say this? I have the 10.5 and it is not soft. The only mention I have seen in the reviews only involvs images converted to rectilinear.

Yours and Bjorn's information is very important. I have to add that all the shots I've seen of Fisheye lenses have excellent sharpness.

Lil:smile: