Sigma 10-20 or Nikon 10.5 Fisheye

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by lmorgan, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. lmorgan

    lmorgan

    300
    Jun 27, 2008
    NCentral IL
    I have about $500-$600 to spend on either a wide angle or a fisheye. I've seen the "fisheye" attachments and wondered if they were worth anything. Anyway, I like the whimsical nature of the fisheye and how it incorporates such a wide view. I also love the distorted look on the wide angle. Has anyone else had this toss up and what have you decided? I want to get one before fall as I will be travelling to Galena, IL and will have some amazing wide angle/fisheye opportunities. Thanks in advance for your input!! :biggrin:
     
  2. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    If you fancy the look the fisheye lenses offer, that is what I would go for. If you wanted to, you could use Photoshop and other various editing programs to de-fish any image you wish to, so as to make it appear as taken with a standard wide angle lens.
     
  3. chewbacca7

    chewbacca7

    30
    Aug 7, 2008
    Lynnwood, WA
    My vote goes for the Sigma 10-20... I use that lens and it's great. I personally prefer the rectilinear look, as opposed to the distored fisheye look... but that's mainly because I tend to use my wide lens for shooting architecture and landscapes and don't want the lines to distort.

    On an unrelated note, I see that you have a 105mm f2.8 Micro... Have you used it to shoot portraits? How have you liked it? (Sorry for the subject change)...
     
  4. lmorgan

    lmorgan

    300
    Jun 27, 2008
    NCentral IL
    Thanks for the input.

    I just got the lens about a week ago and the only shoot I've been on was with my daughter to the park (other than macro). I have a couple that I need to edit and I'll upload. I rented the 60mm for a shoot and loved it, then bought the 105 with the idea of using it both as a macro and a portrait. It blows away my 50mm 1.8. It is so super sharp and I'm a stickler for sharp eyes. LOL
     
  5. PedroS

    PedroS

    259
    May 4, 2008
    Portugal
    I have used booth and sold booth... but for different reasons...

    I saw that you have the new "king" 24-70. And also the great 105 VR, so you are used to good, may I say, exceptional IQ?
    Sigma 10-20, even if it's a good lens will not stand the pace against the others and you will be disapointed. That's why I have sold mine. I was never satisfied with the IQ.
    The 10.5 fisheye is the way to go. Great to exceptional IQ, and with NX and other softwares you can correct (if needed) the distortion. I have sold mine because I went to full frame and the 16 fisheye will appear soon.
     
  6. Pianisimo

    Pianisimo Guest

    I tried both. I ended up getting the Sigma 10-20. I never really was too interested in the fisheye look, the Sigma seemed practical. The speed isn't really a problem as you can easily shoot around 1/10th of a second and still get a still shot zoomed out. What I love most about the Sigma is that, if you want to, you can make it produce a distorted picture. But you can also use it to create a gorgeous landscape.

    People will hate me for saying this because it's not entirely true but...the Nikkor is a one trick pony. The Sigma spends a great deal of time on my camera, whereas the 10.5 probably would not.

    Edit - also if you want samples of either from any of us feel free to ask :) it's why we're here.
     
  7. I like the 10.5, it's a 2.8 and sharp. How can you go wrong. I use it to take GV shots while at work. I prefer it over a rectilinear wide-angle. More dramatic if used properly. It's also very easy to avoid the bulbous fisheye look. Just don't shoot architecture with it! Also more useful in a pinch.
     
  8. johncarol

    johncarol

    Jan 31, 2006
    SW Florida
    I agree that the 10 is a better lens, but the 10-20 sigma is much more versatile and not bad.
     
  9. yooper

    yooper

    71
    May 5, 2008
    Winona Lake, IN
    I went through this same decision earlier this year and finally purchased the fisheye. I love it! I thought getting the lens.hemi software would be a nice complement for the lens though, more often than not, prefer the image without it. Nothing against the software, just most of the time the image doesn't need it.

    There are dozens, even hundreds, of examples posted on the cafe from each lens. If you haven't already, do a search ....and be inspired! Then again, that may not make the choice any easier. :biggrin:

    Here's my current favorite from the 10.5mm ...

    [​IMG]
     
  10. lmorgan

    lmorgan

    300
    Jun 27, 2008
    NCentral IL
    LOL - this is what brought me to contemplating the Sigma 10-20!! I saw the 1,000,000 page thread of examples from this lens. I had my heart set on the fisheye, so that thread is making this choice very hard!!!

    I love your example!

    Off to find the fisheye examples! :biggrin:
     
  11. I like and use the Sigma 10-20.
     
  12. vinman

    vinman

    Nov 15, 2006
    Upstate SC
  13. I took the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye and Sigma 10-20mm to South America. Used both. Here are a couple of examples from Machu Picchu.

    Sigma
    p449449545-5.jpg

    Nikon
    p179802153-5.jpg
     
  14. LXShooter

    LXShooter

    Feb 28, 2008
    Wisconsin
    Thx for the pics, Joe! The Nikon seems to be much sharper. I'm actually looking for a nice wide angle lens myself. I'm debating between the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16, and Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye. After seeing your pics, there's no doubt the fisheye will be a great buy.
     
  15. My vote is for the sigma 10-20mm. ;)

    As shot with only a resize and low sharpening in Nikon PP. EXIF is there.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Ruff Draft

    Ruff Draft

    Sep 2, 2007
    Michigan
    The 10-20 would be more useful, but the 10.5 more fun. :D

    I would also suggest the Tokina 10-17. I LOVE that little guy. I've been lusting after one for quite some time.
     
  17. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    I would have to say fisheye for the soul reason that it makes a spectacular undistorted wide angle if you know how to use it. And it's not like their is any secret, if you put the horizon in the middle everything stays fairly rectilinear.

    Slight panoramic crop:
    2785300115_299a365e60.jpg

    I used it for this shot because my only other wide lens was 18mm. I loved what it did for the carousel, though.

    2785299437_0f23f7ebec.jpg

    More landscape fun (though more fishy, too)

    2591107490_29e939c9d7.jpg

    I've always had access to a 10-20mm if I wanted it (my Dad also shoots nikon), but honestly, it's never even been in my bag.
     
  18. avyoung

    avyoung

    Dec 17, 2007
    Canada
    I have the Sigma 10-20, but I still crave the Nikon Fisheye 10.5.
    If you have a desire for the fisheye, I don't think the Sigma will satisfy.
    You may have to buy...both!
    ;)
     
  19. I have both. I use the Sigma 10-20 more as it is more versatile. The fisheye is a specialty lens and I would not compare them to each other. Both are excellent lenses in their own right. It all depends on what kind of shooting you plan to do.
     
  20. lmorgan

    lmorgan

    300
    Jun 27, 2008
    NCentral IL
    :wink: I think you are right. After checking out the different example threads and seeing the examples here, I don't the choice now is which one, but more which one to buy FIRST!!! :biggrin:

    I think I'm coming to terms with the fact that my "want" list is going to be never ending. Is that normal? LOL