Which wide angle
 

For some time I have lusted over a 10.5mm fisheye lens but I have now formed the opinion I would not use such a specialist lens very much. I would have chosen the Nikkor 12-24mm f4 but I have now found the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 and seems to be a compromise between the fisheye focal length and narrow end of 12-24 Nikkor.

So, I am seeking members opinions for wide angle lenses and in particular Sigma 10-20 versers Nikkor 12-24.

I realise 10mm on the Sigma would not five the same image as the fisheye but is as wide as its gets within reason.

Yes Foxy 10.5mm is still rectangular image and not circular field that comes with true fish-eye s.a. 8mm or smaller. It still covers a very wide field of view and gives you the distortion. So if circular view is your preferred one, go for a real 8mm. The older Non AF, Nikon 8mm, F2.8 is a gem. The even older f 5.6, so called Nikon's ugliest lens is a different story as it has a very protruding rear lens elements that need mirror lock up (Won't physically seat otherwise in its place despite the universal F mount).

But I think you are more into new AF lenses (Remember that in extreme wide angle focusing is really minimal especially with narrower F stop). So though I am not familiar with 10.5mm Niky, from the price, you can expect somewhat limitations.

Sigma 10-20mm is excellent. As for Canon (I know not your concern but could be important for others) the Canon's competitor lens, 10-22mm is only for small sensor bodies (x1.6 factor) and does not fit 5D or 1D full frames, but Sigma does! of course you can expect a bit vignette, thus the reason Canon specifically made it for EFs and not EF mount.

The problem I see with a true 8mm fisheye, is that picture is so small that you really hardly get to see what is going on and in fact I prefer to use 8mm on 1.6x bodies and a 10 to 16mm on a full frame body.

A lot of people are saying a lot of good things recently about Tokina's new ultra wide zoom; 11-16mm that comes with fixed F stop of 2.8 which gives a unique opportunity of indoor low light situations and also night or over caste sky situations that I think comes quite handy in Europe. The problem is lens is not readily available and who ever brings it in (At least in USA) the entire party solds out quick. I think that wonderful wide F stop plus excellent price or about $550, combined with the very sharp images it produce (Except a bit softness at full open stop) are the contributory factors to its popularity. You may want to have a closer look at this one too as one of the potential future candidates especially if budget matters.

No matter what your choice is, fisheye has a very unique charm and provides very special opportunities to photographer.

Forgot to mentioned that Sigma also has recently made a 4.5mm AF true fish eye that gives a full circle on small sensor of DSLRs with x1.6 x1.5 form factor. It is relatively quite cheap too.

I don't know about the Tokina 11-16 that Sassan mentions, but the Tokina 10-16 fisheye is available in Nikon mount and has a good reputation amongst Pentax users (it's a Pentax/Tokina design collaboration). I've had a brief play with the Pentax badged version in a shop but have never used one in anger. Can be had for about £400
http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/945...Nikon-Fit.html

Fisheyes do give a very different view of the world, and it's not just a matter of focal length. My Sigma 10-20 will give a very different view at 10mm to a 10mm fish eye. I find the Sigma at 16mm gives a different view to my Pentax 16-45 when it's used at the same apparent focal length. Once you're talking about ultra wides, there seems to be more to it than the number on the barrel, very much a case of try before you buy.

Ultra wide angles give massive DoF at quite 'regular' apertures such as f/8. A lot of my street candid photography is done with the Sigma set to 10mm, f/8 and manual focus preset to about halfway between the 3m and infinity on the distance scale. I find I can get anything at just about any distance acceptably in focus at these settings.

If you don't want a true fish eye then you'll find plenty of people who like their Sigmas. I have no experience of the Nikon version. I do find it can be difficult not getting things straying into the frame with the Sigma, lord only knows how you work around these problems with a fish eye........
"What are those brown bits on the bottom of the picture?"
"They're my shoes."
"What are those furry bits at the top of the picture?"
"They're my eyebrows."

That seems to be a 10-17mm Tokina with half to one full stop higher than the newer cousin 11-16mm (That I think just kills the deal) and IMHO it is that stop difference (F 2.8 fixed) along with the low price that has made this particular Tokina, a very desiring lens especially for indoor celebration, wedding, museum etc photography. Here is the link in your mentioned site:

UK LINK
USA seller LINK
General Information LINK

Hi folks - 10 days to move - having a break and spotted this. I have both the 12-24 Nikkor DX and the 10-20 Sigma DG. I would recommend the Sigma as it is a very good lens and is useable on both DX and FX formats without any restrictions ie: It retains max pixels on FX. Take care - Andy

Sassan,

The Tokina 10-17 is a fisheye giving full 180 degrees of view, the 11-16 is NOT a fisheye, they are very different lenses giving VERY different results. Given the different views these lenses will produce, the max aperture is a lesser factor when deciding which to go for.

Where Sigma's glass was usually quite good but build quality a little suspect, I've always been impressed by Tokina lens build quality. I'm sure in pre digi days Tokina produced a lens which was also optionally available with a few cosmetic alterations and a Nikon badge?! (for a little more money too?) ..one or two of Tokina's optics didn't receive a totally positive press, but the 10-16mm is certainly part of Tokina's new generation of glassware. I've heard nothing but strong praise for it's quality/versatility.
Sigma 10-20mm used on full frame (FX) format bodies...how bad is the vignette/key hole effect?

I use a 15-30mm Sigma, which at 15mm isn't exactly a very wide on cropped (DX) sensors, but when fitted to full frame film body (F5) it is seriuosly wide, but of course I then don't have the convenience (or control) of the digi capture. (the first time I've ever admitted that one I think!)

Not that I can justify it at the mo, but that leaves two options open to me for those wider shots. Get an full frame (FX) digi body to fully utilise the 15mm, or get a wider than 15mm focal length lens. Both answer the solutions of a wide view, but picture perspective massively different.
Ideally wouldn't it be lovely to have a 8-24mm full frame lens!! :eek:
I'm kind of leaning toward a super-wide/ semi fish-eye option that can be used on both formats.

Ideally I wouldn't want DX format only lenses in my kit bag, just in case I do use film, or get a D700 or D3 one day!:rolleyes:

Anyone any further thoughts on this hypathetical dilema?

I went through this dilemma when I upgraded from my (Canon) 17-85 IS to the 24-105 L IS as I then hadn't got anything remotely wide angle - not that the 17-85 was particularly wide on a crop sensor. With the 24-105 and the 70-300 I had lenses that would fit a full frame body should I change my 20D for a 5D (soo tempting now with the new one ;)) at some time in the future

I looked at the Sigma 12-24 (my understanding is the the 10-20 while it may fit on a full frame body it will suffer sever vignetting) but the difference that 2mm makes on a crop body is quite significant. In the end I decided to go for a lens designed for the crop sensor and chose the Canon 10-22 over the Sigma, both on the basis of performance and that if I did get a full frame body at sometime in the future I could sell it without too much loss and buy a 16-35 (if I could afford it) or a 17-40 (if not). As Nikon don't offer anything that goes as wide as 10mm (I don't think) I would say go for the Sigma

I have to say I love this lens and its great for going out set on 10mm f8 manual focus set at 1m gives a dof from 50cm to inf and getting on my belly gives a whole new perspective on life like this where I was only about 4 feet from the lady with the guitar :D

Yes specially at the right side of equation. If it is on the tele side not much but if on the wide angle side, it is a day and night difference. Don't forget the Nikon's 8mm F2.8 can be bought about $1,500 and Nikon's 6mm was introduced at about $60,000 (That too with only special order).

Don't know who said it rightly that with fish-eye lens, you want be aware of your unwanted body parts in the picture. Here is a picture for Foxy:

LINK

I think you are probably right Clive. On reflection a 10mm effective DX crop format only lens makes more sense than going for a full frame capable lens wider than 15mm...unless it really could be justified. Sassan has indicated the prices of a couple of Nikon's options for full frame optics wider than 15mm.
It probably belongs in the other thread regarding classic and interesting photo gear...but I just found this monster on the dreaded ebay..

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tchlink:top:uk

it kinda puts the options into perspective!

I am a bit late to this thread so wonder if the subject is still a live one Foxy. As you know I have the Nikkor 12-24 and am well pleased with it.

I have not handled the Sigma to see how much difference the extra 2mm at the wide end will give. Certainly the Nikkor 10.5mm we played with was very wide.

Don