Reading mode: Light Dark

wide angle prime ?

Go to last post
I only shoot primes, and my favorite wide angle prime is the 10.5mm fisheye. Why you ask? well 180 diagonal degrees field of view and 150 degrees of horizontal field of view. there isn't a rectilinear lens made of any focal length that can get much more than 100 horizontal degrees it just isn't physically possible and even though I normally don't shoot wide angle this extreme view just grabs me

Not for everyone, but you asked ;-)

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
with out a doubt. Sharp lens and it is fun when you want it to be.
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

 
I asked because I'm curious. I love my prime lenses, and want to get a good wide angle lense. I just wondered what everyone's got, and what they love about them.

I'm not saying I'll buy what you like, but I just wanted to know for my own interest and further education. :)

--
Cheers,
Nicki
 
Nickigirl said:
What is your favourite wide angle fixed-focal-length lense and why?
Click to expand...
My fave is the 20mm f/2.8D Nikkor, Nicki. It's a small piece of glass that tucks unobtrusively into my camera bag, and I've found it useful for everything from interiors to environmental portraits. Here's a few samples.











--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
Agreed, I love the 24mm 2.0 on digital!

I also like my 28mm 1.4 AF-D and 18mm 2.8 AF-D. The 28mm isn't really wide on digitals though.

The 10.5 is a lot fun, but I'm rarely satisfied with the soft edges. I've found I can use a 12-24 at 12 and stitching software to get super wide like that and get amazing detail edge to edge. And the stitched 12-24 images don't have the nasty CA of the 10.5.
newsphotog said:
newsphotog said:
24/4 AIS. It's fast and easy as pie to snap into focus.
Click to expand...
I meant the 24/2...

--
-Tom

-Check out http://www.b-roll.net
Click to expand...
 
hc4n4 said:
edwardneal said:
I only shoot primes, and my favorite wide angle prime is
10.5mm fisheye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
hc4n4 said:
I don't have it but borrowed one. Yes it is fantastic. here is a
sample of a de-fished photo.

Click to expand...
I really very seldom find defishing appealing, especially when it's the
sort of standard defishing that Nikon Capture does. That sort of
rectilinear projection distorts too much of what's left over after it's
thrown a lot out.

Notice how blurry your edges appear? Way too bendy. Really, too often
defishing seems to make images worse by imposing a worse warping than
it started out as.

Not all defishing has to be done that way. Ed will be quick to tell you
how good the Image Trends plug-in's alternate mapping is, and he's right.

But I really like the 10.5 best when you don't defish at all. Put the horizon
at the center, then crop to a more pleasing aspect ratio, and I think you're
usually left with a higher quality image. For example:

BCN-2005-09/Large/2005-10-01_16-34-42_DSC6999.jpg

That was shot through a big glass store window, out the back of the
Desigual shop at Mare Magnum in Barcelona with a D70. I didn't defish,
and I think it looks better that way. See what I mean.

Here's a cool trick. If you shoot under an arch, the as-shot image will
have straight lines. This one is not defished:



But this one is:



Because this is what it really looks like:



which, if you unfish it, makes it really seem wrong:



There's no question that this lens has an awesome field of view:



None of these are defished, and I don't think most of them would look as
good if they were:



















Here's a real quick-and-rough stitch of just a few shots to make 360°!



I understand that defishing can expand the application area of the lens,
especially with the Image Trends plug-in. I just kind have a suspicion
that the people who get it with the intention of "fixing" it wish defishing
are missing out on something. Defishing often makes an image worse, not
better; plus, you can get plenty of great shots out of it without either
defishing or distracting levels of distortion.

Last thing is to remember that you don't have to always use the full frame,
and that a crop will often improve the shot.

--tom
 
I agree 100% do not buy the 10.5 if you just plan on de-fishing it or re-mapping it. when this subject comes up I often recommend the image trends plug in, I do think it a useful tool that adds a second dimension to the 10.5, but it is just an extra. The 10.5 should only be bought if you love what it can do by itself..

JMO
Tom Christiansen said:
I understand that defishing can expand the application area of
the lens,
especially with the Image Trends plug-in. I just kind have a
suspicion
that the people who get it with the intention of "fixing" it wish
defishing
are missing out on something. Defishing often makes an image
worse, not
better; plus, you can get plenty of great shots out of it without
either
defishing or distracting levels of distortion.

Last thing is to remember that you don't have to always use the
full frame,
and that a crop will often improve the shot.

--tom
Click to expand...
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
I agree, I'd get the fisheye if I was interested in the look of a fisheye-shot image. Which is definitely cool, but not me.
I've seen some somewhat poor reviews of the 20mm but it looks like fun to me!

--
Cheers,
Nicki
 
Corrected link:

But I really like the 10.5 best when you don't defish at all. Put the
horizon at the center, then crop to a more pleasing aspect ratio, and
I think you're usually left with a higher quality image. For example:



That was shot through a big glass store window, out the back of the
Desigual shop at Mare Magnum in Barcelona with a D70. I didn't
defish, and I think it looks better that way. See what I mean.

--tom
 
Bjorn Rorslett just recently added a review of the AF-D 20mm f/2.8 to his site. On a scale of 1 to 5 he gives it a 4. this is the exact same score he gives to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 and the 300mm f/4 both of which are considered to be very good lenses. If you read his review you will notice that he points out that it has some field curvature this could explain why it does very well in the real world, but not so well shooting flat charts like the one that photozone uses. also I thin if you do some checking you will find that photozone is the only site that does not give the 20 a very good rating. check out the reviews at these sites.

The R&L Nikkor tables with 2 reviewers give it a 5 and a 4.8 respectively
http://www.verwoerd.info/nikon/#wides_normals

Thom Hogan says:

"With the Nikon 62mm polarizer, this lens is nothing short of awesome: sharp, contrasty, distortion and flare free, with color that is intense and dramatic."
http://www.bythom.com/20lens.htm

and of course like I said Bjorn gives it good numbers as well
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

Please note that Bjorns score of a 4 is specifically when the 20 is used on digital.
Nickigirl said:
I've seen some somewhat poor reviews of the 20mm but it looks like
fun to me!

--
Cheers,
Nicki
Click to expand...
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top