Nikon 10,5mm vs. Nikon 16mm

Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I love my Nikon 10,5mm fisheye - sold my first, but regret it and have just bought it again some month ago.

My plan was NEVER to sell it again, but things changes (se below)

Use it together with hemi.image.trend if you sometimes want a WA without distortions - marvellous.

I really like the IQ for this lens - some CA, but it can normally be fixed.

And I love, that it is "so hard" to get flare/ghosting with this lens.


Now I am lusting for the D700... and that change something.


So: Then there is the Nikon 16mm, but I have an interpretation, that the IQ of the 10,5mm is... better ??

Why does people saw off from the 10,5mm ? - I interpretate, that it is because the IQ is better than the 16mm.


But does anybody have experience with both lenses ???

Thank you and best from Denmark


Steinar



Some 10,5 pics

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




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



Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
634
Location
Old Bridge, NJ
Only with that of the 16mm. It was a great lens to have, but i sold it to fund my d300. The novelty of it wore off as i only used it for snowboard photography (not to mention i own the 18-70, which is close in FL). It was fun when i used it though.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Thank you, James, but I use the fisheye for a lot of things - also scapes.

Here with my D40, but I an not so happy with using manual focus - a lot of times I only got the green dot "blinking" not stable:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
I works, but not properly - without sawing of, there is a "circle" around the pic - ...with sawing of it is about 200 degrees, I think, but some of the picture is "outside" as I recall, when I saw it, but maybe some, that have tryed it will tune in here and tell us.

There is a way, though, you can crop the picture with a vertical line that crosses the round sides, and then use hemi.image.trend afterwards to alter it to WA, but it is not perfect.

--

But still: What lens have the best IQ - the 10,5mm or the 16mm if anybody have had both for a while, I would appreciate some experience.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
236
Location
North York, Ontario, Canada
Steinar,

I had the 10.5mm Nikkor and was very happy with it on 'DX' *except* for the CA (this is before I had the D300).

Right now I'm waiting for a Sigma 15mm that I traded my Sigma 8mm for with a fellow Cafe member. The 8mm just didn't cut it for me on 'FX'.

FWIW, checkout these 360VR examples on this site:

http://www.360precision.com/360/index.cfm?precision=products.camlensinfolist

There's a comparison between a 10.5mm (shaved) vs a 16mm Nikkors on the D3.

Roger...
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,128
Location
Superior CO
considered the zenitar at all?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Steinar,

I had the 10.5mm Nikkor and was very happy with it on 'DX' *except* for the CA (this is before I had the D300).

Right now I'm waiting for a Sigma 15mm that I traded my Sigma 8mm for with a fellow Cafe member. The 8mm just didn't cut it for me on 'FX'.

FWIW, checkout these 360VR examples on this site:

http://www.360precision.com/360/index.cfm?precision=products.camlensinfolist

There's a comparison between a 10.5mm (shaved) vs a 16mm Nikkors on the D3.

Roger...

Thank you Roger, very interesting site.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Thank you, Joe, but I am normally an AF-guy - even I have thougth about the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0, so maybe I have to learn it.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
2,221
Location
San Antonio TX
I think the 16mm on FX is almost indistinguishable from the 16mm of DX.
I sold my beloved 10.5 and immediately bought a 16mm when I made the D2x to D3 migration.

The 16 might exhibit a bit less CA, of that I'm not certain.

A thought.....a brave one....done by some......if you cut the hood off of the 10.5 you get a near circular fish-eye effect from the 10.5 on FX.
Several web sites instruct on the circumcision of the 10.5.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I think the 16mm on FX is almost indistinguishable from the 16mm of DX.
I sold my beloved 10.5 and immediately bought a 16mm when I made the D2x to D3 migration.

The 16 might exhibit a bit less CA, of that I'm not certain.

A thought.....a brave one....done by some......if you cut the hood off of the 10.5 you get a near circular fish-eye effect from the 10.5 on FX.
Several web sites instruct on the circumcision of the 10.5.

Thank you Vernon, but what do you say about the IQ:

10,5 on DX ver. 16mm on D3 ??




Is the 10,5.s IQ a little better or is it equal.

Why do they saw off the 10,5 so it can be used on a D3 (D700) if you can sell the 10,5 and buy the 16mm for the FX, if the 10,5 is not better ??
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
771
Location
Greater NYC
Seems as if it would be a bit awkward cropping the 10.5 DX image when using this lens on an X body. Sort of defeats the intent with having a fisheye.

My son has both the 10.5 and 16 in his carry kit - but this is the opposite situation whith him using them on a DX body. The 10.5 works as intended with the 16 providing a 'less extreme' fisheye image since only the center is registering on the smaller sensor.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Thank you Vernon - I have bookmarked those sites if I go FX.

It also "gives food" to my interpretation, that the 10,5 have the edge.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
The 10.5 is the sharpest lens Nikon has ever produced.
I would have thought the 300/2.8 or one of the various Micro-Nikkors should be able to claim that. The "sharpness" of the 10.5 is greatly damaged by the appalling amounts of lateral (somewhat fixable) and longitunal (unfixable) chromatic aberration.

I think I can find at least a dozen Nikkors exhibiting better performance at f/8.

Nikkor 10.5 @ f/8 (100% crop)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
236
Location
North York, Ontario, Canada
Why do they saw off the 10,5 so it can be used on a D3 (D700) if you can sell the 10,5 and buy the 16mm for the FX, if the 10,5 is not better ??
The reason is because sawed off the 10.5mm yields just over 200 deg on FX and the quality is excellent. For 360vr the difference on FX is shooting 6+z+n with the 16mm or 4+z with the 10.5mm. If you're bracketing for exposure blending/hdr that means an extra 6+ frames to shoot.

Roger...
 
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