650 on a fisheye!

[poopingfish]

Yeap, me again! Went and looked locally at a super wide angle and fisheye lenses. My mom figured we might as well spend the extra money on a good quality lense then skimp on something like this for the money.

I got to personally look at the Tokina 10-17 and Ive got to say it was amazing, the build quality is so much better then my crappy kit lens and the little hood was CUTE! Im really liking the 180-100 angle FOV possibilities.

So, would you all reccomend I go with the Tokina 10-17 for About 560 or possibly something else similar? I need it to be atleast >100 degrees FOV.
Going on a cropped sensor body.


Thanks once again all!

Edit-Checked reviews on the 10-17 and it has pretty bad CA it seems. Gross. I LOVED the ability to go from full fisheye to SWA though.
The other lenses just do ~100 fov. Anything else similar to this Tokina?
If not, it may be the 11-16 for me or a prime.

Editv2- I am looking at:
Tokina 11-16
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 17-70
Canon 10-22
Canon 15mm prime fisheye (How much would my sensor crop it, effectively?)
Tokina at-x 12-24 Pro
Tokina 10-17 (LOVE the FOV possibilities but bad CA?)
Tamron 11-18

Did I miss anything? What do you all think would be best? Ive heard the tokina at-x pro 12-24 rivals the Canon 10-22 for less cost.

Other suggestions welcome!

 

[Antithesis]

Not many choices out there for a crop sensor. I'm opting for the sigma 15mm fisheye (at ~$400 used) as I've read it's sharper than it's canon counterpart. I'd read up and see if sigma offers something for DX sensors. Oh, and I'd recommend a super-wide over a fisheye as your second lens. It'll have far more applications.

 

[icassell]

I love my Sigma 10-20 and very little CA

http://www.10-20mm.com/

 

[icassell]

If you go to photosig.com you can sort images by lens ... compare the lenses you're interested in

for example, here are some with the 10-17

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=39925

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=41956

 

[poopingfish]

Woh, thanks icassel! E-cookie for you sir.

The 12-24 I believe is for the 1.6 as well as the 10mm prime from sigma and the 10-17 which im still leaning towards.

 

[icassell]

on a crop sensor camera, there is a big difference between the appearance of 10mm and 12mm, which is why I went with my Sigma --- I haven't been disappointed.

 

[poopingfish]

I read a review and someone said they liked the 12-24 pro over the 10-20 or the 10-22 for some reason. I can easily get the 12-24 pro DX if I want. Would you suggest that over it or no?

 

[Antithesis]

The 12-24 I believe is for the 1.6 as well as the 10mm prime from sigma and the 10-17 which im still leaning towards.

Yeah, I was just saying that the choices on a crop sensor for a fisheye are just a bit more expensive.

I had a 12-24 on my old D80 and felt it plenty wide and did a lot for my photography. I absolutely loved being able to involve so much foreground in my images. I'm sure a 10mm would have blown my mind.

That 10-20.com website is really awesome btw.

 

[icassell]

I read a review and someone said they liked the 12-24 pro over the 10-20 or the 10-22 for some reason. I can easily get the 12-24 pro DX if I want. Would you suggest that over it or no?

One thing I love about the Sigma is the fast/quiet HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic equivalent of Canon's USM). Don't know if Tokina has something like that. The Tokina is a bit faster at a constant f4 (the Sigma is a 4.5-5.6), but I have rarely felt the need for a faster lens when I go UWA. If you want very fast, go with the Tamron, which I believe is an f2.8

 

[poopingfish]

Well the Tokina is an 11-16 as well so Im not sure. Otherwise the lenses lie around f4.

 

[icassell]

You're right -- it's the Tokina that's a 2.8

 

[poopingfish]

Dang, looking around more and some people say the 10-17 is kindof soft. I still like the angle options though. The 10-20 looks like a solid choice, and the 11-16 but that lowers the FOV even more.

 

[poopingfish]

Someone posted some examples on another forum that looked quite good. The 11-16 should be better but ive been told since I shoot skateboarding I should go for HSM or USM lenses.
How much of a difference will this make?

 

[icassell]

The only lens I have that doesn't have HSM/USM is my daily walkabout Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It focuses fast, but I don't shoot sports so I don't know how much difference it makes. The ultrasonic motors are silent and speedy, so I could see an advantage. Then again, I only manual focused for years ...

 

[poopingfish]

Is the 2.8 much of a difference from 3.5 or 4? I can go with the 10-17 fisheye with an f4 widest or an 11-16 which doesnt have nearly the field of view but is sharper and is f2.8.