16 mm fisheye vs 14-24 mm wide angle

[bs0604]

hopefully this photo uploaded from flickr. Forget that it is a terrible picture. This was an enormous sinkhole which my nikon 14-24 mm set on 14 mm did not seem to capture. Would a 16 mm fisheye lens do any better?



sinkholeflickr by bs0604, on Flickr
sinkholeflickr by bs0604, on Flickr

 

[480sparky]

The 16mm fisheye is not a renticular lens and will curve most of the straight lines. It can be corrected in post, but you lose a lot of the image doing so.

Shooting landscapes can be done with a FE, but if you don't aim the center of the lens at the horizon, it will bend / curve it so it will look unnatural.

Try learning how to stitch panoramics.

 

[orb9220]

Yep one of the reasons I went with the Sigma 10-20 as even 2mm is significant and noticeable going wide. 4mm even more so on the 14-24. So as mentioned shoot at 20-24 for least amount of distortion and stitch together.