10-20 UWA vs10mm Fisheye

bl0at3r

bl0at3r

Messages
3,999
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at a wiiiiiiidddddeeeeeee lens for a Nikon crop body (d5100 without focus motor)....

For landscape and architecture would you recommend a UWA like the sigma 10-20mm or a Fisheye like the Sigma 10mm?

(if you make a recommendation please state why) :thumbs:
 
Although it won't AF on your body, the Nikon 10.5mm, if you line the horizon up central, will actually look pretty normal..... great for a panoramic crop but once you look at the edges of the frame then the massive distortion of verticals and horizontals is apparent. You can de-fisheye them but to what extent I don't know. Brilliant lens BTW.

If you go for a wide-angle zoom then think about the Tokina 12-24 f/4 or if you can afford it, the Nikon 12-24mm f/4..... both are brilliant optics with brilliant build quality. 12mm is also very wide on DX and you also have a bit more leeway with filters not showing, whereas with wider lenses you may have to invest in ultra-thin filters so they don't vignette....

There's also the 14-24, which is expensive and doesn't take filters FYI. Amazingly sharp though :)
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
Can it not be de-fished in PP?
Click to expand...

Yeah but it will look like arse. There's a reason good rectilinear ultra-wides are expensive.

If you want to get stuck into architecture proper, get a larger sensor camera, a good wide, don't know Nikon but their 14-24 or something is supposed to be nice (EDIT Pat's faster than me). And then start looking at tilt shift lenses as well - even less idea what Nikon have to offer there, but Canon have things like the 17mm f/4 TSE which looks very nice.
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
So the Tokina 11-16 will focus on my d5100?

Is it better than the sigma 10-20 or the tamron?
Click to expand...

Don't know if the mk2 11-16mm is on sale, but that was supposed to have a built-in motor.

The 11-16 gets some very high praise indeed.
 
I had this exact same choice yesterday & I went for the 10.5 fisheye. Not really had a chance to use it yet but wow it's wide I gotta be careful I don't end up with my belly in the photo!
As for auto focus I can't see it being a problem because even when set to infinity everything from about 3 feet away will be in focus.
As for close focus I reckon it's about 2cm in front of the lens!
 
AF really isn't an issue. literally everything (more than 2 feet away) will be in focus with the lens set at infinity :thumbs:
 
Gary Coyle said:
A fisheye wont be any use at all for landscapes because, well, its a fisheye
Click to expand...


Samyang 8mm great for landscapes if care is used

Quick non-cropped, with no 'fisheye' correction example

b341b281.jpg


Paul
 
bl0at3r said:
For landscape and architecture would you recommend a UWA like the sigma 10-20mm or a Fisheye like the Sigma 10mm?
Click to expand...

What a strange question?! I mean they're totally different lenses. For landscape and archi you'd want the 10-22 and for special effects the fishy, but certainly not the other way around! :shrug:
 
I happen to be selling a Sigma 10-20 for Nikon in the Classified section. :)
There's a couple of example photos in there too...
 
Jackwow said:
What a strange question?! I mean they're totally different lenses. For landscape and archi you'd want the 10-22 and for special effects the fishy, but certainly not the other way around! :shrug:
Click to expand...

That would be a sensible question then. Asking which you recommend between two lenses that weren't different would be strange.

And of course you can shoot architecture and landscapes with a fisheye, and you can exploit the fairly extreme optics of something like a 10-22, to introduce 'special effects' to images.
 
I'd go for the wide lens for two reasons. Firstly correcting fisheye would IMVHO be a pain and secondly I wouldn't want to use a fisheye that often, now and again the effect would be ok but I personally would rather have multiple wide shots than multiple fisheye.
 
woof woof said:
I'd go for the wide lens for two reasons. Firstly correcting fisheye would IMVHO be a pain and secondly I wouldn't want to use a fisheye that often, now and again the effect would be ok but I personally would rather have multiple wide shots than multiple fisheye.
Click to expand...

I have the nikon fisheye and Lightroom 3 has a lens profile for auto correction. You lose a fair amount of view but it is still is pretty wide. Will send samples if you want, pm me. Also have the sigma wide angle and it's pretty good for the cost. Not as sharp as maybe I'd like but then I didn't want to spend much more on an uwa. I use it for interior shots at work so not much experience outside with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top