Which Nikon Lens - "Fisheye" or not?

[shootme]

I have a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR and eventually I'd like to get the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm. I have also been looking at the 10.5mm fisheye to have some fun on occasion with a 180 deg. perspective. My question is, should I forget about the fisheye and just go for the 14-14mm f2.8? The way I see it is; if I don't get the fisheye the 14-24mm will actually only cost around 1k, if you follow my drift... Appreciate your points of view(s)?

[fx101]

The 10.5mm is a fun little lens, although to be honest I rarely use it. If you have proper software to correct it (ptlens or dxo work best) then you'll love it, but keep in mind that this adds an extra step to your workflow. Buy it and keep it in your bag for when the 14-24 isn't wide enough. I see you're using the D300 so I'm not sure why you're buying the 14-24f/2.8 instead of a wider lens like the 12-24mm or the even better Tokina 11-16mm. Remember the crop factor......

[shootme]

Thanks for the advice. I am thinking of getting the non-DX lenses because down the road I see a possibility of also getting an FX body so I don't want to invest too much in DX lenses. Or doesn't that matter?

[fx101]

Thanks for the advice. I am thinking of getting the non-DX lenses because down the road I see a possibility of also getting an FX body so I don't want to invest too much in DX lenses. Or doesn't that matter?

Well that's a good reason...

If you realistically see yourself getting a full-frame body in the near future then the 14-24 is definitely a great investment. It's a very sharp (and quite heavy) lens with surprisingly low distortion.

[another view]

FX vs DX is a personal choice; I'm happy with DX but I know others aren't. I bring this up because a 14 isn't particularly wide on a DX body. Again, that's my opinion and I'm a big fan of my Sigma 10-20. I guess I'd decide on making the move or not before buying lenses.

The fisheye is a special effects lens and I really wouldn't consider it without having a good wide zoom first. I've seen the "stretched" results with Capture NX and although it would be fun from time to time, I can't see buying one. I do have the Nikon fisheye adapter for my old Coolpix 5000 and it is fun once in awhile - but I rarely use it.

[deckcadet]

You should really consider a few things. One is that you can get a 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S for pretty cheap now. If you don't see yourself needing more than 99º field of view, then this is your lens- it's smaller, a bit more comfortable to use, I believe it is lighter, but most importantly it a) takes filters b) takes a standard lens cap and c) has a removable hood. It is truly a superb optic.

Of course, the 14-24 is simply the best wide angle out there right now, period. There's a reason the 14-24 is in my bag today instead of another 17-35. The wide open sharpness is simply unbelievable. It's pretty resistant to flare and ghosting, has a certain degree of sealing, and is really one of the best optics in modern history. It has very low CA and vignetting even compared to the 17-35, a wider field of view, and matches up perfectly with the 24-70. With the latest bodies (d300, D3, D700) it will also have additional in-camera chromatic aberration control when shooting JPEG or TIFF in camera, or RAW processed in Capture NX. Unfortunately you have a very wide and round front element with no real way to protect it. You won't be able to use filters, but this is more a concern with environmental issues, rather than effective filtration, as you have issues like uneven polarization across the frame wider than about 24mm equivalent.

I would suggest the 17-35 if you're on a budget (used below $1000, last time I checked, though this may have gone up a bit), and you could also afford the 10.5 fisheye. What most people fail to realize is that it's still one of the best fisheyes out there even on FX. The problem is the built in hood will provide a very odd shaped mask if you force it to FX mode on a full frame body. The solution here is not for the faint of heart, but you can remove this hood using a hacksaw or maybe even a sharp knife. I've seen it done, and I may do it myself. What you end up with is an extraordinarily sharp and contrasty semi-circular fisheye. The top and bottom of the circle will be cropped out by the rectangular sensor, but you get a nice effect and about 10 effective megapixels on the D3/D700 if you crop down to the extreme edge of the circle.
Here's a sample I took with the aforementioned modified fisheye owned by a friend of mine in Norway.


You can click Here to see the full resolution image. Converted to sRGB and light unsharp mask applied. 10.5 DX fisheye modified on Nikon D3, f/11 ISO 200 1/250s.

I do have a lot of samples with the 14-24 and D3 and D300 if you would like some, and I can always dig up some with the D200+17-35 combo I used to shoot.

[shootme]

Thanks everybody, appreciate your time to help me

Deckcadet I would actually be interested in seeing some samples especially between the D3 and D300. Thanks for that. I love the shot you posted above.

FX101, I did some research on your suggestion for the Tokina 11-16mm. I usually stick with Nikon on lenses and in all my collection of lenses I only have 1 Sigma lens, a 24-60mm 2.8 DG-EX which I was surprised with the all-round quality and very reasonable (cheap) price. Anyway I read a review from Ken Rockwell on the Tokina SD (IF) DX 11-16mm 2.8 and it performed very well, better than I would have anticipated and better than the Nikon 12-24mm f4 (at least for sharpness). The link to Ken's review is http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm I think I'll go for the Nikon Fisheye and when I get the full frame I'll get the 14-24mm. But I am now very interested in the Tokina, but will do some additional research, I think it's just under $600 vs Nikon 12-24mm at $900?

Again thanks.

[deckcadet]

I'll dig some up for you later this weekend.

[jkriminger]

I level my 10.5 Fisheye as much as possible and then use the distortion fix in cs3 to my liking. Then I crop out a extreme wide angle out of this. I have a few "pier pics" in my photos for reference. Its not perfect but you can get some nice results in a pinch.

[shootme]

Deckcadet, thanks I look forward to seeing them.

Jkriminger, saw some of your pier shots actually left a message to one, great stuff, not sure I can take shots like that yet, you can smell the ocean in the shots and hear the rush of waves.

[jkriminger]

Glad you like them, they are not straight out of the camera mind you. i enjoy a good spat of PP.

[shootme]

I'll dig some up for you later this weekend.

Deckcadet, did you post those shots you mentioned you'd dig up, I haven't seen anything yet. The Fisheye arrives tomorrow. Cheers