Wide Angle Primes for DX?

[Phillip Ino]

Is the Sigma 14mm 2.8 any good? How about the Tokina 17mm 3.5? I am considering the prime option versus keeping my zoom. If you have any images to share, that would be great! Thanks :smile:

 

[Nuteshack]

the 15 2.8 is awesome...diag fish ..check it out..;-)

 

[Phillip Ino]

the 15 2.8 is awesome...diag fish ..check it out..;-)

Oh yeah? What's special about that one? :smile:

 

[pforsell]

the 15 2.8 is awesome...diag fish ..check it out..;-)

15... hmm that must be the Sigma? Do you shoot with it and/or have samples? Can you comment the Nikkor 16/2.8?

I have listed my both DX lenses for sale (Tokina) and will replace them with a FX fisheye. I was considering the 16/2.8 as the easy/obvious choice but I see now that there is a Sigma too.

Back to the topic: None of the 14/2.8 primes have impressed me on DX. All of them have obscene amounts of both lateral (post-processing fixable) and longitunal CA (unfixable). The Nikkor was designed for the 2 Mpixel D1. What is interesting though is that whether any of these 14 mm (Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron) works with the 12 Mpix FX sensor.

 

[Phillip Ino]

15... hmm that must be the Sigma? Do you shoot with it and/or have samples? Can you comment the Nikkor 16/2.8?

I have listed my both DX lenses for sale (Tokina) and will replace them with a FX fisheye. I was considering the 16/2.8 as the easy/obvious choice but I see now that there is a Sigma too.

Back to the topic: None of the 14/2.8 primes have impressed me on DX. All of them have obscene amounts of both lateral (post-processing fixable) and longitunal CA (unfixable). The Nikkor was designed for the 2 Mpixel D1. What is interesting though is that whether any of these 14 mm (Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron) works with the 12 Mpix FX sensor.

Yep, it's a Sigma. And I can't seem to find out much info online about how the 14/2.8 performs on DX.

 

[PhilDPho]

what about the Nikkor 10.5?

 

[pforsell]

what about the Nikkor 10.5?

It is a top notch diagonal fisheye. Propably the best DX lens by Nikon ever.

You just have to like the fisheye distortion since the software solutions (Capture NX, Fisheye-Hemi) used to "straighten" the distortion while doing a good job cannot do miracles. You will lose some image data due to cropping and inevitably lose some details and resolution in the process too. I wouldn't recommend a fish to replace a wide angle, only to supplement it, and always unstraightened.

 

[Phillip Ino]

what about the Nikkor 10.5?

Not really interested in a fish. Too much distortion.

 

[ora-et-labora]

How about the Tokina 17mm 3.5?

Had one, but sold it quick, because it's inferior to the Tokina 12-24/4. On DX, there isn't a real alternative to the zooms IMHO. Maybe the upcoming Zeiss 18/3.5 is better, but it's rather expensive.

 

[Phillip Ino]

Had one, but sold it quick, because it's inferior to the Tokina 12-24/4. On DX, there isn't a real alternative to the zooms IMHO. Maybe the upcoming Zeiss 18/3.5 is better, but it's rather expensive.

Oooh thanks for that great info! Yeah, the Zeiss is most likely going to be out of my budget.

 

[Steiner]

It is a top notch diagonal fisheye. Propably the best DX lens by Nikon ever.

You just have to like the fisheye distortion since the software solutions (Capture NX, Fisheye-Hemi) used to "straighten" the distortion while doing a good job cannot do miracles. You will lose some image data due to cropping and inevitably lose some details and resolution in the process too. I wouldn't recommend a fish to replace a wide angle, only to supplement it, and always unstraightened.

I agree if we are talking about NX, but you only loose about 2% resolution using the hemi-software, as I recommend very high.

I love NX and use it all the time, even I have the CS3 extended, but for altering a fisheye-photo the Hemi-software is much better than NX.

The Hemi is made for people shooting but I have fine results with scapes about 8 out of 10 times.

With the Hemi-software it is close, that the 10,5 can give you all you want for the wide.

I only have a WA-lens so I can use a filter. Otherwise it would be enough for me with the 10,5.

 

[Nuteshack]

Oh yeah? What's special about that one? :smile:

performs more like a wide angle, fantastic color, contrast, very sharp all that:biggrin:...btw, fish makes me dizzy..lol

 

[Nuteshack]

15... hmm that must be the Sigma? Do you shoot with it and/or have samples? Can you comment the Nikkor 16/2.8?

I have listed my both DX lenses for sale (Tokina) and will replace them with a FX fisheye. I was considering the 16/2.8 as the easy/obvious choice but I see now that there is a Sigma too.

Back to the topic: None of the 14/2.8 primes have impressed me on DX. All of them have obscene amounts of both lateral (post-processing fixable) and longitunal CA (unfixable). The Nikkor was designed for the 2 Mpixel D1. What is interesting though is that whether any of these 14 mm (Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron) works with the 12 Mpix FX sensor.

personally don't have any samples but have seen several ...it rocks and is FX ....:biggrin:

 

[Steiner]

fish makes me dizzy..lol

:biggrin:

 

[PhilDPho]

I know Ken is a bit of an idiot, but this plug-in used with Fisheyes looks great!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fisheye-hemi.htm

 

[cotdt]

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 can be considered a prime lens...

I know Ken is a bit of an idiot, but this plug-in used with Fisheyes looks great!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fisheye-hemi.htm

Even straightened it's still not rectilinear though... it just gives the perception of being rectilinear. If you compare to a rectilinear lens, it would look different.

 

[Phillip Ino]

performs more like a wide angle, fantastic color, contrast, very sharp all that:biggrin:...btw, fish makes me dizzy..lol

Hmm, very convincing, Mark! Are you talking about the new DG version or does it not matter to you? And yes, fish = dizzy :Swirl:

 

[Phillip Ino]

I know Ken is a bit of an idiot, but this plug-in used with Fisheyes looks great!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fisheye-hemi.htm

Yeah but that's just one more step in the workflow that I'd rather not add....thanks, though! :smile:

 

[MParker]

Yep, it's a Sigma. And I can't seem to find out much info online about how the 14/2.8 performs on DX.

Thom Hogan's review of the Sigma 14mm
http://www.bythom.com/14lens.htm

Thom Hogan's review of the Sigma 15mm
http://www.bythom.com/15lens.htm

 

[panda81]

Just curious, is there a reason why you're exclusively looking at primes?