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!

FX fisheye dilemma: Please help

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by SMH77, Sep 11, 2008.

  1. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Hey guys & gals, I need some advice from my trusted friends here at the cafe...

    Since last December, I've been shooting FX only and have sold off all my DX lenses, including my 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye lens. I've got a wedding in about 9 days and I know the client is looking for some pictures that are a little 'less traditional'. I'm planning on satisfying this by being more adventursome with posing (after the 'safe' shots have been taken), but I also think a fisheye is another option (perhaps also a lens baby?) to help give them some images that are out of the norm (they are younger clients).

    With that said, I'm looking to replace my 10.5 fisheye and am really torn about whether or not I should get another 10.5 or if I should get a Nikon 16 mm f/2.8 as it covers the full FX format. I've looked for reviews of the 16mm fish and there are only a few reviews on the web--and they're all positive. When I look at the 10.5, there is generally a strong following, lots of raving, great examples, etc.--and I understand why after owning the lens.

    The only things that cause me hesitation with getting the 16mm version are that the lens doesn't incorporate ED elements (to help control CA), and the MTF curves don't look as good as the 10.5 within the same regions, so I'm wondering if I'll be a little disappointed with this lens' performance near wide open. The thing I'm hesitant about with the 10.5 is the fact that it will only be used in DX format (5.1 MP) on my D3's--and I'd rather not give up the resolution of the sensor...

    So, the above are my thoughts and I'm turning to the community to help me sort through my thinking. I do prefer to own only Nikon glass (I'd be open to the lens baby if there's a strong consensus about getting that in stead / addition).

    Please help! :confused: 


    Sean
     
  2. Hi Sean,

    The 10.5 is great, but I sold it and purchased a Nikon 16mm 2.8 fisheye when I went FX. Honestly I see no discernible difference between the two. The 10.5 also has a little CA wide-open despite the ED. Since you're shooting FX, the 16mm will be more useful in available light at higher ISOs.

    Get the 16mm with confidence. I could barely tell the two lenses apart. Other than the old school crinkle finish on the 16mm, they look identical.

    The fisheye design is really simple, since there is no need to try to correct lens curvature. I think every Nikon mount fisheye rates highly, even the Sigma 15mm.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2008
  3. dutchtrumpet

    dutchtrumpet

    493
    May 2, 2007
    Dallas
    I've been using my 10.5 in crop mode. fwiw
     
  4. My 16/f2.8 on FX is functionally the same as the 10.5/f2.8 on DX, but I see less CA on the 16mm than on the 10.5mm.
     
  5. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Thanks for the feedback from all 3 of you.

    Ok, so the CA shouldn't be an issue (and the D3 compensates for it anyway), but what about resolution--particularly near wider apertures? I'm not trying to doubt anything you've said, but I've read comments (by pradipta over on DPR: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=28560508&q=D3+fisheye&qf=m) that have caused me to pause...

    However, 12mp in FX has to compensate somewhat for 5.1 mp in DX so even though the 10.5 *may be* 'sharper', in a resized photo (1200 pixels max?) would the 'sharper' 10.5 fish (if it really is sharper at all which I'm doubting after reading Jonathan's comments) really show any advantage anyway in practical use? I'm just thinking out loud...

    Anyone have pictures from both on the D3 they can show full pictures and off-center crops (doesn't have to be at the edge) from?


    Sean
     
  6. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Thanks Jonathan--I appreciate your real world experience with shooting both these lenses. Did you happen to try both on the FX?

    Please don't take my questions above as doubting your experience--I'm merely trying to 'shake out' some of the 'not as Ideal' feedback from my mind from reading comments in the past...


    Sean
     
  7. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Do you miss having the use of FX when using it in DX mode? How quickly I've become spoiled after upgrading from my previous D2Hs to the D3... :rolleyes: 

    Thanks for the feedback...


    Sean
     
  8. rvink

    rvink

    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    The photographer at my sister's wedding used a 16mm fisheye on a DX camera with excellent results. The fisheye effect is not as extreme as the 10.5mm fisheye, but it still produces nicely distorted images, and the smaller (107°) picture angle is much easier to use. Often 180° coverage is too much. Take a look here:

    http://www.masonstudio.co.uk/w040607cragside/w040607cragside.htm

    I wouldn't be too concerned about the 16mm performance. It probably does have a bit of CA, but that is easily cleaned up with software, and if you are shooting with the D300 it will fix that automatically. It's probably not the sharpest lens Nikon ever made either, but it's fine when stopped down a bit (like most lenses). How many wedding shots ever get enlarged anyway?
     
  9. Sean,

    Just go to the camera shop and test both of them out. I seriously cannot tell the difference. The 16mm does the job. In my opinion whatever benefits the 10.5 may have, is negated by the D3's ability to use the fisheye in low light. I also prefer the viewfinder with the 16mm fisheye, it's soooooooooo wide!

    I did try both on FX and still think the 16mm is the better lens to have!

    I'll take some 16mm photos for you right now. I'll be back...
     
  10. dutchtrumpet

    dutchtrumpet

    493
    May 2, 2007
    Dallas
    The only thing I lose is going from 12 MP to 5.1 MP

    Otherwise it is the same as shooting on the d300

    I'll probably switch for the 16 later but am in no hurry.
     
  11. I've been using the Sigma 15mm fisheye for a couple of months now on my D700. I've been quite happy with the results. Previously I had been using the 10.5mm Nikkor on 'DX'. FWIW I find the Sigma to have less CA than the 10.5mm Nikkor. The difference is noticeable even with NEF files processed 'straight' out of ACR/PS.
     
  12. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Thanks Jonathan--I guess you (and the others) are making the answer self-evident for me. :redface: I can be a little bone-headed at times for sure. After all, a great pictures is more than a technically sharp picture anyway--there are many more factors that play into it in terms of composition, lighting, exposure, emotion...

    Thanks for the feedback once again. I guess I'll be going with the 16mm.


    Sean
     
  13. Nikkor AIS

    Nikkor AIS

    Jun 5, 2008
    Alberta
    You know:tongue:, nikon made a 8 mm 2.8 AIS:biggrin: I recently re-bought mine and Im in fish-eye heaven. The 16mm 2.8/3.5 AIS is a greast lens and I owned a couple but the the thing to realized is that its only 180 degree's on the diagonal: Where as the nikkor 8mm 2.8 AIS is 180 degree's in all direction. So what you get in terms of coverage with a circlular fisheye compared to the rectlinetar is day and night. So if your clients want something really different go with the circular Nikkor 8 2.8 mm AIS. Check out www.kevincameras.com. I bought my Fisheye from www.keh.com for a really nice price in bargin condition. But kevin Camera's has like 5 mint version's:eek: . Not cheap, not for everyone , but when you learn what it can do . Nothing else even comes close.

    gregory
     
  14. Here Sean,

    All shot at 2.8 to try and create some CA. Couldn't see any though! :wink:

    Full Shot:
    [​IMG]

    Crop:
    [​IMG]

    Another sample at 2.8:

    Full Shot:
    [​IMG]

    Crop:
    [​IMG]
     
  15. SMH77

    SMH77

    746
    Feb 11, 2006
    Illinois
    Thanks Jonathan! Yep, those look just fine all right! They sharpen up really nicely as well--thanks for posting these samples; I think you've made up my mind for me... :biggrin:

    Sean
     
  16. Now that I think about it, I think the 10.5 exhibited more CA, well at least on my D2X.
     
  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.