Nikon 10.5 fisheye

Hi!

You are right about the fisheye being "unique" and "fun"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=36542120
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/nikon_105_pictures&page=all

Good Luck:

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

nikonfreak wrote:

Hi guys, I am considering getting a fish eye lens. I am using D40, so i am aware that the 10.5 nikon lens will not AF with my body.

So I got few questions before I dump $550 on this lens.

1) Is 550 a fair price for this lens USED?

There is no way to answer this - it depends upon the condition of the lens. For another 170 you can get a new one with full warranty.

2) I know that this lens cant take filter, for the experienced users out there, has this been a problem?

Probably not, but again it depends upon how compulsive you are in taking care of your equipment. If you want to use a polarizer, look at UWA lenses instead.

3) is fish eye lens much wider than UWA?

The 10.5 is 180 degree FOV. Your sigma was even a bit more.

4) I did have 10-20 sigma but i sold because it was soft wide open at f4 and I found that wide angle was pretty tricky to use. do you think that 10.5 fisheye will be better in terms of sharpness performance? and is it hard to use fish eye lens?

The 10.5 is quite sharp. If you had trouble visualizing scenes with the sigma, the 10.5 won't help you. Fisheyes aren't hard to use. They are just different.

5) it wont AF with my body, so i have to MF, is it difficult?

Probably not if you are doing landscapes. Spontaneous portraits or street photography might be a challenge. The 10.5 has a large DOF which helps with manual focussing.

6) should I just get UWA lens instead of fish eye? i am thinking that fish eye lens is unique and maybe fun. am i wrong to think this way? i understand that the fish eye lens is not really that popular.

Photographers who use a fisheye regularly love them, but they aren't for everyone. It is a specialty lens that is a lot of fun to use when the image calls for it, but no where near as useful as a quality WA lens.

7) for fish eye lens users out there, what do you use this lens for? landscape or what?

It's not the lens. It's the photographer. I've seen all kinds of wonderful images that photographers accomplish with the 10.5

sorry for asking too many questions.

1) Is 550 a fair price for this lens USED?

Yes - most previously-loved fisheyes are way north of $600.

2) I know that this lens cant take filter, for the experienced users out there,
has this been a problem?

You have to use more care and attention, because the very small butterfly
hood design gives almost no protection for the convex element. It is more
open to scratching/damage, whatever, than "normal" lens glass, but no, this
is not a deal-breaker, and has never been a problem. The supplied cover is
more substrantial than usual Nikon aps, and slips over the sides of the lens
front, rather than just snapping into place across the glass.

3) is fish eye lens much wider than UWA?

It is a tad wider than some UWAs, but offers a different perspective,
with curved straight lines. It plays with your mind a lot It curves lines
which would be straight when using a rectilinear WA ( 10-20 / 12-24 )

4) I did have 10-20 sigma but i sold because it was soft wide open at f4
and I found that wide angle was pretty tricky to use. do you think that
10.5 fisheye will be better in terms of sharpness performance? and is it
hard to use fish eye lens?

The 10.5 has astonishing sharpness, even at f/2.8 and is easy to use
when yoiu have adjusted to the lens quirkiness.

5) it wont AF with my body, so i have to MF, is it difficult?

Dunno - always use AF with this lens

6) should I just get UWA lens instead of fish eye? i am thinking that fish eye
lens is unique and maybe fun. am i wrong to think this way? i understand
that the fish eye lens is not really that popular.

The fisheye teaches you to look at photography in a different way. If you
keep the horizontal line even, it is a very WA lens. A normal WA is probably
probably be more useful and versatile, but not as interesting or unique.
You can do things with the fisheye which you can't do with any other lens.
If that is what you seek, then go for it, you won't be disappointed !
I find it fuels my creativity, such as it is

7) for fish eye lens users out there, what do you use this lens for? landscape
or what?

seascapes, landscapes, cityscapes, interior and exterior of buildings, unique
sem-macro, architecture shots, nighttime starry sky, church interiors and
exteriors.

Couple of other thoughts :
If you do not do a lot of photography, this lens might be too much of an
extra. In other words, you have lenses which you might already use for
those occasions, and so would not use the fisheye much. Another way of

saying it is that this is a very specialised lens. It is a wonderful high-quality
piece of equipment IF you need it

Not a people lens, becauser of the close-range distortion - big noses, etc.
It can be useful for groups, if you keep it straight, and subjects towards
the middle

It is wonderfully compact, so can slip into a camera bag without fuss.
I tend to carry it "just in case" because of its small size and weight.

It can teach you a lot about varying light conditions because, while
( say ) 35mm will show a certain width of scene, where the light might
be consistent across the frame, the fisheye will display a wider scene,
where light will almost certainly be at differing levels.

this sunrise shot of no particular merit shows that you can't isolate or
highlight anything unless it is really close. In this one, I elected to keep
the horizon straight, so the shoreline became curvy

. . .

Have you considered a Bower / Rokinon / Samyang / whatever brand 8mm fisheye? You can get them new for less than half of what you are thinking of paying, and from what I have heard the quality is pretty good. I am in the middle of convincing myself whether or not I want a fisheye, but if I decide to get one, it will be this one; MF is no problem for fisheyes, and I am quite leery of spending $550+ on a (used) lens when I don't know whether or not it even works with my style.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

From the specifications, of the manufactures, the Diagonal field of view at the wide end is as follows

Nikon 10.5mm = 180 degrees
Sigma 8-16mm = 114.5 degrees
Sigma 10-20mm = 102.4 degrees
Nikon 10-24mm = 109 degrees
Nikon 12-24mm = 99 degrees
Tokina 11-16mm = 104 degrees

I find it interesting that Sigma's stated field of view for the 10-20 is only 102.4 where as the specs for both the Nikon 10-24 and the Tokina 11-16 are wider.

perhaps the Sigma is not really 10mm at the wide end

as you can see the 10.5 fisheye is much much wider than any rectilinear UWA.

I love the 10.5 because it gives a feeling of being there better than any other lens I have used.

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

yes all lenses are listed by the diagonal field of view, but if you want 180 or more horizontally you can always stitch 2 or more 10.5mm images together. It really works well and you dont need a pano head or any other special gear

here are some 2 shot stitches from the 10.5 shot hand held that are well over 200 degrees across the center

Mr Fartleberry wrote:

Just remember the 180º is across corners not turning your head completely left and right.
--

Sold the (old) half-frame from Thailand. Bought a 700 under my own personal stimulus
plan.

nikonfreak wrote:

Hi guys, I am considering getting a fish eye lens. I am using D40, so i am aware that the 10.5 nikon lens will not AF with my body.

So I got few questions before I dump $550 on this lens.

1) Is 550 a fair price for this lens USED?

Yes, I think so. I paid a lot more than that new.

2) I know that this lens cant take filter, for the experienced users out there, has this been a problem?

Not at all.

3) is fish eye lens much wider than UWA?

yes!

4) I did have 10-20 sigma but i sold because it was soft wide open at f4 and I found that wide angle was pretty tricky to use. do you think that 10.5 fisheye will be better in terms of sharpness performance? and is it hard to use fish eye lens?

I find the lens to be very sharp, and you don't need to stop down much for depth of field either.

Hard to use? Depends, I guess. You will definitely have to learn to 'see' differently.

5) it wont AF with my body, so i have to MF, is it difficult?

Not at all. I can think of no other lens that less needs autofocus (except perhaps macro lenses). Honestly, the depth of field on the lens is so great that you can get away without being very accurate. The focus range shown on the lens goes from about half a foot to 2 feet, then jumps to infinity. So you are really just focusing on things within 2 feet.

6) should I just get UWA lens instead of fish eye? i am thinking that fish eye lens is unique and maybe fun. am i wrong to think this way? i understand that the fish eye lens is not really that popular.

It is certainly fun! I think just about everyone who has posted their experiences with the 10.5 mentions the word fun. But it is limited - you can't just use it for every wide angle shot.

7) for fish eye lens users out there, what do you use this lens for? landscape or what?

Hmm. Landscape is probably the least I use it for. Here are some samples:
http://www.cjcphoto.net/fisheye/fisheye.html

Sigma makes a 10mm fisheye that has built in focus motor so it will focus on your camera. I don't know how good it is but it might be worth looking into. you can see it here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/535762-USA/Sigma_477_306_10mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html