DSLRUsers.com

i am considering buying a wide lens at the end of the year. have done a search and found nothing. the two i am considering are the 10.5mm fisheye and the 12-24mm nikkor. i like the fact that the 10.5mm is f2.8 but am worried i'll be stuck with distorted photos my entire life - they could be corrected but at a cost of the viewing angle... and lots of time. on the other hand the 12-24 would be nice but is only F4 and has no fish inside.

the hard part is i want to shoot almost anything with the lens i choose - indoor and out, night and day.

i am interested in any comments/reccomendations and possibly the other brands. which would you buy and why??

Give these a quick read:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =12&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =28&page=1

This is not an either/or situation; these are each very different lenses with very different purposes in life.

The 10.FE is a special purpose lens. It should not be considered as a general purpose lens. The distortion is a feature, not a drawback, although it can be removed in PP.

You need to decide what your usage for the lens is going to be, and it is that usage that will be deciding which of these lenses you will need to buy.

what Gary said +1

a 10.5 fisheye is not a "normal" lens. FL does not tell you all you need to know about a lens, 12-24 compared to a 10.5FE is like chalk and cheese..

but FYI I had a similar decision some time ago and I chose the 10-20 Sigma very very happy

wider - my comments would be the same as the above.

This is taken from another forum, which may help you in your quest to select a suitable WA lens:-

12-24mm Nikkor
10-20mm Sigma
11-18mm Tamron
12-24mm Tokina

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-1 ... out_2.html

fozzie

I have both of these lenses and have used them for some time. As you can read elsewhere the 10.5 is my favourite lens, but no way would I recommend it over the 12-24 since your images will be too distorted (of course this can be overcome with programs like DxO Optics Pro). Interestingly my 12-24 was one of my most used lenses but now rarely sees the light of day since I obtained the 17-35 f2.8 - not quite as wide but f2.8 goodness (and a price tag to match).

So get the 12-24 (but remember both of these are DX lenses so not full frame on a D3 when you buy one )

thats right stubbsy the D3 is a 'when' not an 'if' question


very valid points by everyone... after reading some more (cheers pehpsi fozzie and stubbsy) i would be more interested in the sigma 10-20mm instead of the nikkor.

gstark you've made me think differently now, i was worried i'd feel limited by a fisheye but now after going through many images on flickr taken by the super-wide zooms and the 10.5mm, i'm beginning to like the possibilities that are opened up by the F.E. its hard to get that 'wide' feeling by looking at a non-distorted wide angle photo

eg. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanpui/424059702/

wider wrote:gstark you've made me think differently now, i was worried i'd feel limited by a fisheye but now after going through many images on flickr taken by the super-wide zooms and the 10.5mm, i'm beginning to like the possibilities that are opened up by the F.E. its hard to get that 'wide' feeling by looking at a non-distorted wide angle photo

The FE is not restrictive, but yes, it does require a different way of seeing things, and it can open up a whole new realm of image making for you.

But you can use the Sigma 10-20 with very good effect; I love mine - it's my second favourite lens, and between it and the 85 f/1.4 I am probably shooting 80% of my images now. For UW shots, think in terms of changing your shooting angles: get down low, or get up close and personal. Very close. Very personal.

gstark wrote:For UW shots, think in terms of changing your shooting angles: get down low, or get up close and personal. Very close. Very personal.

Do you mean like this?

How about the new 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina that is coming out? Meant to be good.
I have the 12-24mm F4 Tokina, which I like, but sometimes I would like just a bit more field of view.

skyva wrote:How about the new 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina that is coming out? Meant to be good.
I have the 12-24mm F4 Tokina, which I like, but sometimes I would like just a bit more field of view.

11-16 seems, to me, like it's too narrow a range to make it truly usable.

If 12mm isn't enough, then just take another two steps backwards. The difference between 12mm and 11mm are not that great.

gstark wrote:For UW shots, think in terms of changing your shooting angles: get down low, or get up close and personal. Very close. Very personal.

Gary,

For a moment I thought you were commenting on Under Water shots which surprised me until I realised you meant Ultra Wide. The advice is still good for under water, though. You do need to get down low AND up close and personal.

i have both lenses and imho u should start with the 12-24.
then save up to add the 10.5 in the future.
thats the beauty of using d-slr bodies right? lens lust!!
am saving up for 85 1.8 now...

... Obsolete ...

... Obsolete ...

heheh i was waiting for someone to pick up on that...

ironically i dont actually like fish much!

VK4CP wrote:

gstark wrote:11-16 seems, to me, like it's too narrow a range to make it truly usable.

It depends on what you are shooting.
My AT-X124 rarely comes off 12mm.

So perhaps you should have purchased a prime?

My point was that one buys a zoom to obtain a measure of flexibility. 12-24 offers 13mm of flexibility; 10-20 offers a little less at 11mm, and 11-16 offers significantly less again, with just 6mm.

Absent some other significant advantages, I don't see why one might purchase this lens given that there are some other great value performers in the market place that offer good value.

gstark wrote:...The difference between 12mm and 11mm are not that great.

True, but f4.0 to f2.8 can give you an edge when trying to balance flash against ambient juggling shutter speed & aperture.

Flash at 11mm ?? How many flash heads are we using?

The 10.5mm is an absolutely killer lens, end of story!

... Obsolete ...

Love my 10.5 FE and love my 12-24 F4. If I could only have 1 then it would be the 10.5 and I would use the rest of the money that you would have paid for the 12-24 to get a second hand wide prime 16/2,8 or 20/2,8


Or just get all 4

im starting to be convinced by the 10.5mm, opens up a whole new world of photos

i think i'm going to aim for the 80-200 first though. tis more important. time will tell!

buy my 10.5

I use both the 10.5 and the 80-200 (AFS model) lenses. Both are awesome lenses for their intended purposes. Out of all my lenses these are the only two that I would not sell.

10.5 for spherical panoramas
80-200 AFS for sports shots