Nikon 10.5mm fisheye or Tokina wideangle?...

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
Hopefully will have a spare bit of cash knocking about in a week or so, so thought that I might as well bite the bullet and get the wideangle I've been promising myself for 14 months.

I love the thought of a Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, simply because it's a cheeky little number that gets the thumbs up all-round, but it is of course going to be limiting focal length-wise and effect-wise.

The other option is the Tokina 11-17mm f/2.8. It's got the zoom range, isn't a fisheye so will produce 'realistic' results that won't be so tiresome after prolonged use. Would also consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, as it's got a really good zoom range and is still pretty fast.

The Nikon 12-24mm is far too expensive and before anyone asks, no, I'm not considering the Sigma 10-20mm, as it's a piece of s***. I'm using a Nikon D200.

What's the minimum focussing like on these lenses? I do a lot of magazine work and my Nikon 18-70mm is great but lacks the close focus I really need for a lot of my work. My old works kit contained a Canon 17-40mm (a great lens) that has a good minimum focus distance so that's the benchmark. I take shots of anglers for magazines and do a lot of shots of people holding maggots and other small items towards a lens, so these need to be large in the frame*–*that was the reason for the 10.5mm.

Weight isn't an issue really but they're pretty compact lenses so shouldn't be a problems, and I've heard a lot about both Tokina building great lenses.

I await your excellent advice... :)
 
specialman said:
Hopefully will have a spare bit of cash knocking about in a week or so, so thought that I might as well bite the bullet and get the wideangle I've been promising myself for 14 months.

I love the thought of a Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, simply because it's a cheeky little number that gets the thumbs up all-round, but it is of course going to be limiting focal length-wise and effect-wise.

The other option is the Tokina 11-17mm f/2.8. It's got the zoom range, isn't a fisheye so will produce 'realistic' results that won't be so tiresome after prolonged use. Would also consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, as it's got a really good zoom range and is still pretty fast.

The Nikon 12-24mm is far too expensive and before anyone asks, no, I'm not considering the Sigma 10-20mm, as it's a piece of s***. I'm using a Nikon D200.

What's the minimum focussing like on these lenses? I do a lot of magazine work and my Nikon 18-70mm is great but lacks the close focus I really need for a lot of my work. My old works kit contained a Canon 17-40mm (a great lens) that has a good minimum focus distance so that's the benchmark. I take shots of anglers for magazines and do a lot of shots of people holding maggots and other small items towards a lens, so these need to be large in the frame*–*that was the reason for the 10.5mm.

Weight isn't an issue really but they're pretty compact lenses so shouldn't be a problems, and I've heard a lot about both Tokina building great lenses.

I await your excellent advice... :)
Click to expand...

On what basis are you making your judgement of the Sigma 10-20mm? Not saying it's wrong, just seems at odds with quite a few views i've read/heard.

I've got the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and I find it to be a great lens.

Iain
 
I love my little 10.5mm, and yes it focuses damn close

Thing is, it's a bit quirky, so seeing 20 shots in a row from it could be tiresome, so I tend to use it for a few 'Big' shots

The extreme wideangle would be a more rounded tool - but as I have the Nikon 12-24 that doesn't help does it

In fact, I reckon this post hasn't helped at all :shrug:

+1 then on the post count :lol:

DD
 
Why have you got both Nikon and Canon cameras :thinking:

Anyway, I'm not sure the fisheye ie the way to go, even for angling magazines :lol: They tend to like fairly straight 'record' type shots for that kind of thing. I got told off for using an ultra-wide for a fishy pic for Angling Times once - it made the fish look too big. I thought that was the idea at the time. Maybe things have changed. Fisheyes are great, but only in small doses. I've never actually owned one, nor wished to.

New Nikon 10-24 looks up your street though :)
 
Boyfalldown, didn't even know about that - cheers for the heads-up :)

idkb, a few peeps at work have the Siggy and I really don't like them. We've tried them on our 30D and 40Ds and fr double page spreads, the amount of wierd distrotion around the edges is horrific. Plus, i don't like the slower aperture at 10mm for low-light work. Anything in particular you like about the 12-24mm?

HoppyUK, my company buys Canons; I decided to go Nikon when i bought my own gear. I mainly use the Nikon these days. It was purely because work wasn't investing in new gear regularly enough for my liking so i thought I'd buy my own gear that was of good enough spec. I much prefer the D200 to my works 30D for ease of use, although I sorely miss the EF 17-40mm f/4.

Flash, my mistake - you can flog me for being a Grade-A dumbass :) Meant the 11-16mm f/2.8
 
Well, just found out I've got knackered tyres on my motor and that my road tax is due in a fortnight so that's going to put me £700 out of pocket so I think the Nikon 10-24mm is out of the question. Will have to do some hunting around for the Tokina 11-16mm I think.
 
The sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6 won awards didn't it? TIPA (Technical Image Press Association)
Or are these awards a load of rubbish?????????????
I ask as I am thinking of getting one!
 
SEPkent, don't think the awards are rubbish but I've used a Siggy 10-20mm and just don't rate it. Plus, it's not fast enough aperture-wise, although i did hear they were bringing out a constant f/3.5 version
 
I can't see that there is a great deal of difference between these two lenses? If the new one really worth the extra money? Same glass?
Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX
Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top