New dx fisheye from nikon soon?

[Ejazzle]

Do you guys think that there will be a new DX 10.5 fisheye coming from nikon soon? I mean its been almost 7 years now...

 

[IgsEMT]

There will probably be some sort of adjustment in the future. I've read somewhere that average turnaround for new piece of equipment for Nikon and Canon is b/n 12-18months so something new is bound to come out. The question that you might want to ask is will it be worth the price tag. From speaking with people the new 70-200 vr2 isn't anything hard core special compared to 70-200 vr1 but the price is OBVIOUSLY different.
What I'd love to see in terms of lenses is ONE lens something like 18-200 or even 10-200 that is f/2.8 and yet is under $1,500 WISHFUL THINKING, I KNOW

 

[NateS]

Do you guys think that there will be a new DX 10.5 fisheye coming from nikon soon? I mean its been almost 7 years now...

For them to make a new version, there must be something that the current version is missing. What exactly about the 10.5 would you like that isn't currently there?

I'd say No. I doubt they'd re-do this lens right away. I don't believe it is one of the biggest sellers to be needing a revamp....kind of a specialty lens really. I could be wrong, but I just don't see the sales on that particular lens being high enough to warrant an update....especially when the current one already does what it does very well.

 

[Antithesis]

Do you guys think that there will be a new DX 10.5 fisheye coming from nikon soon? I mean its been almost 7 years now...

For them to make a new version, there must be something that the current version is missing. What exactly about the 10.5 would you like that isn't currently there?

I've only used one copy of this lens, and I found the IQ to be pretty horrible. I actually found this to be the case with Canon's 15mm too. When comparing them to some of the third party offerings (Tokina 10-17, Sigma 15mm), there really is no comparison: the third party lenses are far better in all aspects (Especially corner sharpness and CA).

The main issue I noticed with the Nikon specifically was the chromatic aberration, which was far worse than the Sigma or Tokina. I don't think Nikon would make a huge pile of money by revamping this lens, but I do think it probably needs it. And considering that DX is moving into the "prosumer" range, they could make a less expensive one too using cheaper materials to appeal to a broader range of buyers (namely, the average consumer, who would probably love to have one but can't justify the expense).

Edit: oh, and they could introduce AF-S. That is missing from Nikon's current offering.

 

[Ejazzle]

i was thinkin on the same lines as why they updated the 50mm 1.4

 

[Ejazzle]

pretty much all of what antithesis said.

 

[Derrel]

A 10.5mm fisheye lens that needs AF-S focusing!:lmao: That's hilarious!

Set the 10.5mm lens at 3 feet t f/8. You will have depth of field from 1.3 feet to Infinity. Online Depth of Field Calculator

I know young people have a love for AF-S focusing, but c'mon...a 10.5mm lens can be zone focused, which is also called scale focusing....you know...estimate the distance,and set the focus distance. With the critical focusing needs of the 10.5mm lens, you ned to be precise, and get the distance estimated criticially, like within 15 to 20 feet.

A fisheye lens needs AF-S focusing? That made me laugh. Hyperfocal distance is 2.3 feet at f/8, so as long as it is set to 2.3 feet or farther, everything will be in acceptable focus from 1.15 feet to the Moon.

 

[Garbz]

Only 7 years? That's young for a lens. Are you a member of the ipod generation where everything is automatically obsolete 2 days after it leaves the store?

Complain about the 50mm f/1.2 that lens is 28 years old. Now it is due for a replacement!

 

[Ejazzle]

no condescension is needed...

why was the 50mm updated?

its funny how neither of you acknowledged the CA or IQ. Im not worried about focusing or the 50mm 1.2, just if anyone knew anything about a new 10.5 in the near future.

 

[Derrel]

Is anybody using Nikon Capture software or Panorama Tools ReMap module to 1) eliminate 90 percent of the residual Chromatic Aberration or to if desired, 2) "de-fish" the captures to get a 120 degree rectilinear angle of view? The lens design is about as good as it can be made in terms of chromatic aberration for a TINY fisheye lens that is actually stowable inside of a camera bag, and which sells for the very affordable price of $699,new. The idea is to remove residual Chromatic Aberration using Nikon Capture software, to make the lens small, and affordable. And it is both.

The residual CA the lens's image exhibit are what you might call the $3,000 discount in price that it would have been priced at if the designers had made it a priority to totally eliminate all traces of CA to the maximum. You want a perfect 10.5mm fisheye lens with f/2.8 speed and positively diminutive size? For $699?

Look at what an 8mm f/2.8 fisheye used to be like--I have seen and held precisely ONE of these lenses in 27 years of Nikon use. ONE example.Nikon 8mm

Nowadays, we have a 10.5mm fisheye that costs less than a decent camera; a fully-corrected, perfectly optimized, totally-professional, state-of-the-art fisheye like the 8mm f/2.8 is selling for a little over $2,500 as a 12-year-old DEMO at Adorama right now, today. The lens was first made in 1970,and was last made in 1997. Given how little interest or actual, pressing demand there is for fisheye lenses, and given Nikon's lengthy run with the 8mm f/2.8 fisheye, I have this feeling that the lens will not be re-designed for quite some time. The 50mm f/1.8 AF's optical design has not been re-worked since it was introduced in September of 1986,and that lens sells a lot of copies. When it was introduced, the 10.5 DX sold for around $599, which is about 1/3 to 1/4 of the price of a "professional" Nikkor lens today. I think NIkon feels the lens is good enough for DX users, especially if they avail themselves of the software tools available to handle the removal of the last "$3,000 worth" of chromatic aberration.

 

[bhop]

i was thinkin on the same lines as why they updated the 50mm 1.4

AF-S

 

[Garbz]

no condescension is needed...

why was the 50mm updated?

its funny how neither of you acknowledged the CA or IQ. Im not worried about focusing or the 50mm 1.2, just if anyone knew anything about a new 10.5 in the near future.

Wasn't trying to be condescending, just trying to point out a fact of our times where people upgrade their D40s to D60s because their cameras are so "out of date". Lenses fall way outside this normal category and it takes a lot for a lens to become obsolete.

It doesn't matter if the image quality is down right crap. Given the amount of R&D and time that is sunk into each lens even a crap one will stay on the market for absolutely ages, it just probably won't sell very well. The only time lenses these days are updated is for a massive update in features that were missing, such as none of Nikon's 50mm lenses being able to autofocus on 5 of Nikon's DSLRs which is a much bigger problem for a 50mm than a fisheye, or for a high sale oriented money grab such as the replacement of the 28-70mm f/2.8 with the 24-70mm f/2.8 "Nanocoated" lens.

A DX fisheye is unlikely to be on the top of the todo list.

 

[Antithesis]

A 10.5mm fisheye lens that needs AF-S focusing!:lmao: That's hilarious!

Set the 10.5mm lens at 3 feet t f/8. You will have depth of field from 1.3 feet to Infinity. Online Depth of Field Calculator

I know young people have a love for AF-S focusing, but c'mon...a 10.5mm lens can be zone focused, which is also called scale focusing....you know...estimate the distance,and set the focus distance. With the critical focusing needs of the 10.5mm lens, you ned to be precise, and get the distance estimated criticially, like within 15 to 20 feet.

A fisheye lens needs AF-S focusing? That made me laugh. Hyperfocal distance is 2.3 feet at f/8, so as long as it is set to 2.3 feet or farther, everything will be in acceptable focus from 1.15 feet to the Moon.

Most D40/60/3000/5000 owners have yet to learn the what hyperfocus is, and maybe want to have an autofocus fisheye. Nikon listened when people asked for an AF-S standard prime, so I don't see why they wouldn't fill this market niche either. I know you can handhold a fisheye at 1/4th of a second, but why have an f2.8 lens that you have to stop down to f8 so you can not use your AF. It makes no sense to spend money on features that have suddenly become inconvenient.

And also, you didn't address how Sigma or Tokina can produce a fisheye that outperforms the Nikkor and costs less. Not to mention the Tokina is a zoom, so likely has far more complex internals. Yeah, the Tokina isn't an F2.8, but at 10mm, it's a moot point.

Regardless of differences of opinion, this lens could use an update. Having edited literally thousands of photos shot on this lens, I can tell you that the optical quality is crap, even for a fisheye. Atleast, when you get anywhere near the borders. The center is average. Not to mention that the intended market for this lens has changed with the market for DX lenses and sensors in general.

 

[Garbz]

How does the aperture affect AF? You get a f/2.8 fisheye because even 1/4th of a second hand held isn't enough sometimes. Like in this shot taken at night: http://digitalfreak.net.s39124.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/36011.jpg

In my opinion you used a very key word, niche. Fisheyes a niche lenses often used by very creative amateurs. Many of the type who have progressed far beyond the D40 or any of the other entry level non-in-camera-AF bodies. So again the likely target market to invest R&D budget is pretty darn small.

As for quality this is nothing new. Nikon make some crap lenses, and so do Canon and every other company. Price has little to do with image quality amongst many lenses. There are some lemons and some gems to be had everywhere. The only thing that seems inline with price is the build quality which is about all the Nikkor fisheye has over the competitors from what I have read.

Between economic crisis, a niche market, presumed push towards more FX lenses, and the lens only being 6 years old, it doesn't matter if it could use an update, it probably simply want get one in the foreseeable future.



Mind you marketing folk who push this can do strange things. Heck if Microsoft think a launch party is in order for Windows I'm sure someone out there would suggest sinking huge costs into this for next to no return.

 

[Bevel Heaven]

I have owned the 10.5 for several years now, and I enjoy it for what it is. This lens has a place in my camera bag and is sometimes used on selective shots. I do not think it is a bad lens, or a perfect lens. It is what it is.

That said, if it were so bad, why would a major motorcycle publication such as CYCLE WORLD MAGAZINE specifically, choose to use a photo shot using this lens as the lead photo [2 page spread] for a story?

Below is a small image of the photo I took - followed by a shot of the actual magazine.

If the lens were that bad, or even as bad as you say,......... well, I am absolutely positive that Cycle World had literally thousands of photos to choose from.

For web images, small prints and even large-ish prints I don't see a 'deal breaker' fault. Unless you are making poster sized prints or just stareing at the actual pixel size image on your 21" flatscreen,......

I have a print I did, just the bottom half of what you see here but 48" wide up in my office. I think it looks very cool. By the way, that is the entire field on the first lap of the MotoGP race at Laguna Seca in 2008. The photo was taken in The Corkscrew. It involved a dream 4 months or so before the event, and taking a trip there to figure it out prior to the event.... Then actually pulling it off. Had I thought the lens sucked, I would have chosen a different option but then again I would not have achieved what I saw in my mind's eye.

I like this lens a lot.