What do you think about the Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Lens??

[foto_tuts]

I am thinking about getting a fisheye within my budgte and I wanted to get opinions on the Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED? Is it worth it? I found them used for around $550.00, but I am worried it will be a gadget lens that I may not use much..

Thanks!

 

[480sparky]

I love mine. It may cost more than the third-party FEs, but it's much smaller & lighter, and usually faster. With judicious use, you can get some great captures.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

^^^those pics make me want a fish eye lens.

Couldn't you have posted the typical skate or snow boarder or such

 

[480sparky]

One nice thing about the 10.5 (as well as the FX-format 16) fisheyes.... Capture NX2 has a 1-click distortion correction.

You can render the original image corrected in the camera's native aspect ratio:

Or correct it using all the image data:

This allows a crop that looks a little 'panoramic':

 

[foto_tuts]

I want one bad! I think it would be fun and spark some new creative ideas for me.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

One nice thing about the 10.5 (as well as the FX-format 16) fisheyes.... Capture NX2 has a 1-click distortion correction.

You can render the original image corrected in the camera's native aspect ratio:

Or correct it using all the image data:

This allows a crop that looks a little 'panoramic':

STOP! LoL

 

[foto_tuts]

Can you explain the "1 click distortion correction" for me a little?

 

[pixmedic]

Can you explain the "1 click distortion correction" for me a little?

click a button with your cursor, computer fixes the distortion.

 

[480sparky]

Can you explain the "1 click distortion correction" for me a little?

The 10.5 is not a 'renticular' lens, meaning it does not attempt to render straight lines as straight. The only straight lines in your scene that would be rendered straight in the image would be any that pass through the exact center of the frame. The further out from the center they are, the more curved they will be in the final image.

The 1-click correction applies an algorithm to the image data to basically straighten those lines back out. Since both the 10.5 and 16mm fisheyes are primes, Nikon (well, probably Nik Software as well) knows the changes needed to correct for that fisheye look. The result is one of two options..... render the image in the camera's original sensor aspect ratio, or use as much of the image data as possible and place a transparent background in the areas of missing data.

 

[pixmedic]

Can you explain the "1 click distortion correction" for me a little?

The 10.5 is not a 'renticular' lens, meaning it does not attempt to render straight lines as straight. The only straight lines in your scene that would be rendered straight in the image would be any that pass through the exact center of the frame. The further out from the center they are, the more curved they will be in the final image.

The 1-click correction applies an algorithm to the image data to basically straighten those lines back out. Since both the 10.5 and 16mm fisheyes are primes, Nikon (well, probably Nik Software as well) knows the changes needed to correct for that fisheye look. The result is one of two options..... render the image in the camera's original sensor aspect ratio, or use as much of the image data as possible and place a transparent background in the areas of missing data.

sparkys explanation was probably better than mine.

 

[pixmedic]

and for heavens sake people...quit quoting posts with multiple pictures in it...im getting dizzy trying to scroll to the bottom posts watching the same pictures whiz by.

 

[orb9220]

For me found the Sigma 10-20 much more useful in more situations than a 10.5 fisheye. I seen many yungsters buy it for shooting skateboarding or the cool factor than a month or six down the line sitting unused or wanting to sell after the coolness wears off.

Not saying it isn't useful but for the price can buy an Ultra-Wide that is more useful in many more situations.


Dying Sun by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Rainy Day - PDX by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Lightrail Max Under the Burnside Bridge by Orbmiser, on Flickr

As many accept that the 10.5mm is a specialized lens and may not get as much use as an Ultra-Wide may give you.
Just a thought.
.

 

[480sparky]

For me found the Sigma 10-20 much more useful in more situations than a 10.5 fisheye. I seen many yungsters buy it for shooting skateboarding or the cool factor than a month or six down the line sitting unused or wanting to sell after the coolness wears off.

Not saying it isn't useful but for the price can buy an Ultra-Wide that is more useful in many more situations.


Dying Sun by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Rainy Day - PDX by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Lightrail Max Under the Burnside Bridge by Orbmiser, on Flickr

As many accept that the 10.5mm is a specialized lens and may not get as much use as an Ultra-Wide may give you.
Just a thought.
.

I have both the 10.5 and 10-24 Nikkors.

 

[orb9220]

Yep having both is useful. And each has their use.

But someone entering into the realm of ultra-wide I would point them to a zoom first to see how their style develops. And they will be in a better position to determine a real need for the 10.5mm. As seen many enter and then decide ultra-wide wasn't their style after all. And a ultra-wide zoom is a lot easier to unload on craigslist than the 10.5mm. And with a zoom you can define your style and needs a bit more. As you may determine 10mm isn't your cup of tea and like shooting at 14mm or 20mm or 24mm and want one of those for a prime lens.
.

 

[Aloicious]

an ultrawides are obviously different than a fisheye. ultrawides are typically attempt to preserve straight lines as much as possible, the purpose of a fisheye is to get the strong unconstrained barrel distortion through the lens...though I understand pointing people to a ultrawide first, it takes a little bit to understand thier behavior, and how to use it to your advantage properly...and fisheye's tend to be super specialized, personally I'd love a 16mm fisheye, but I just can't see using it in enough situations to justify the cost...

you could always add the barrel distortion in PS, but IME you'll get better quality with the distortion through the lens rather than stretching pixels. its the same thing for perspective control with tilt/shift vs pixel stretching in PS...

you could try a third party lens and see how you like the fisheye and how much you'd use it, then step up to the nikon if you find yourself using it enough...or better yet, try to rent the nikon to evaluate it...