Nikon 12-24 vs Nikon 10.5 fisheye

Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

G

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

"greg" wrote:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
you were going to be mostly defishing.)

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

Fisheye's a cute effect, but I've rarely seen it used effectively.
Rectilinear ultrawide is much more useful.

I'd be more concerned comparing the Stigma 12-24 with the Nikon. The
Stigma's cheaper and can be used on a film body, but needs to be stopped way
down (f/11 at least according to the reviews) and can't use filters.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"greg" wrote:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
you were going to be mostly defishing.)

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

Fisheye's a cute effect, but I've rarely seen it used effectively.
Rectilinear ultrawide is much more useful.

I'd be more concerned comparing the Stigma 12-24 with the Nikon. The
Stigma's cheaper and can be used on a film body, but needs to be stopped way
down (f/11 at least according to the reviews) and can't use filters.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"greg" writes:

Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

Interesting question.

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

Okay, I'll skip the lecture this time then :-).

Probably the fish, on the grounds that extremism is good. And because
it gives me more opportunity to play with the de-fishing tools. And
because I've never owned a fisheye.

A fisheye has uniform exposure, whereas a rectilinear wideangle
*cannot*.

And because I like faster lenses, in general.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"greg" writes:

Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

Interesting question.

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

Okay, I'll skip the lecture this time then :-).

Probably the fish, on the grounds that extremism is good. And because
it gives me more opportunity to play with the de-fishing tools. And
because I've never owned a fisheye.

A fisheye has uniform exposure, whereas a rectilinear wideangle
*cannot*.

And because I like faster lenses, in general.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"greg" writes:

Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

Interesting question.

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

Okay, I'll skip the lecture this time then :-).

Probably the fish, on the grounds that extremism is good. And because
it gives me more opportunity to play with the de-fishing tools. And
because I've never owned a fisheye.

A fisheye has uniform exposure, whereas a rectilinear wideangle
*cannot*.

And because I like faster lenses, in general.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"greg" wrote:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
you were going to be mostly defishing.)

"A lot of time"? Can you quantify that somewhat? I certainly don't
find overall perspective corrections that computationally intensive;
is the fan/defan much worse? I've only played with it a little...not
having a fisheye. (I've played with it in the other direction,
creating fisheye images from rectilinear shots.)

A 15mm doesn't get him out all that wide really.

How much *is* that 10.5 mm anyway? Hmmm, only $570@B&H. Not too bad
really.

The Sigma 14mm f2.8 is $900. Nikon's own 12-24 is $975. This is
weird, I can't seem to find the Sigma 12-24mm, but I remember it as
being around $600 last I looked.

I must say that I found the Sigma 12-24 rather nice to play with when
I was loaned one for about a day.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"greg" wrote:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

You'll spend a lot of time defishing your fisheye shots, and the quality at
the edges will be poor. (You'd probably be better off with a 15mm fisheye if
you were going to be mostly defishing.)

"A lot of time"? Can you quantify that somewhat? I certainly don't
find overall perspective corrections that computationally intensive;
is the fan/defan much worse? I've only played with it a little...not
having a fisheye. (I've played with it in the other direction,
creating fisheye images from rectilinear shots.)

A 15mm doesn't get him out all that wide really.

How much *is* that 10.5 mm anyway? Hmmm, only $570@B&H. Not too bad
really.

The Sigma 14mm f2.8 is $900. Nikon's own 12-24 is $975. This is
weird, I can't seem to find the Sigma 12-24mm, but I remember it as
being around $600 last I looked.

I must say that I found the Sigma 12-24 rather nice to play with when
I was loaned one for about a day.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

If "fisheye" is not your objective then go with the Nikon 12/24. I own
one and am pleased with results. Go to a shop if possible and try one.

Ken

"greg" wrote in message
news:fGw%c.351315$gE.17291@pd7tw3no...
Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking
for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by
the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

G

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)

If "fisheye" is not your objective then go with the Nikon 12/24. I own
one and am pleased with results. Go to a shop if possible and try one.

Ken

"greg" wrote in message
news:fGw%c.351315$gE.17291@pd7tw3no...
Okay, let's try this.

Let's say you have a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm lens, but you're looking
for
some wider coverage. Also, let's say your ONLY options a

- Nikon 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye

The 12-24 has some range, but 1/2 that same range is already covered by
the
18-70 lens you already have.

The 10.5 is wider and faster, but it doesn't zoom, and it's a fish.

Ignoring cost, which would you go for, and why?

G

(yes, I know, it's all up to how *I* will use the lens, not someone else;
I'm just looking for opinions)