new sigma fisheyes

i see we are getting a 4.5mm fisheye how is it possible that the lens is so small and yet it is 4.5mm? anyways is anyone planning on buying htese?

The new lenses certainly look exciting. I am eagerly awaiting the first shots taken with them.

I doubt the image quality will be spectacular, but it's the only practical circular for use on DX so you can't complain too bad.

I will get one eventually.

The Nikon 10.5 is one of my favorite lenses. I'm definitely getting the sigma fisheye.

--
Geir Bjerke, Norway ( http://www.darkside.no/ )

Speaking of the Nikon 10.5, I wonder how the Sigma 10.5 2.8 compares optically/IQ? One advantage is it will auto focus on the D40/D40x where the Nikon will not given the screw drive auto focus. Perhaps cheaper to boot.

Very interesting, but my 10-20 already gives me 10mm. As I never shoot it at less than f9 the 2.8 doesn't really do it for me.

I have no need for the fisheye, so that doesn't tempt me.

-Suntan

They are very interesting - that proves that they are a lot of fisheye lovers out there.

One thing that bugs me is that their close focusing ability is not as good as the nikkor or as the Tokina fisheye zoom, these almost touch the front of the lens !!!!



--



http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2180

Suntan said:

Very interesting, but my 10-20 already gives me 10mm.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, and inapplicable.

Rectilinear optics at 10mm on a DX sensor provides an angle
of view that's around 110 degrees on the diagonal. These
full-frame fisheyes like the Nikon 10.5/2.8 and the new
Sigma 10/2.8 provide instead an angle of view that's a
full 180 degrees, or 70 degrees wider than your paltry
rectilinear lens can eke out. This is no small difference;
it is a great one.

Suntan said:

As I never
shoot it at less than f9 the 2.8 doesn't really do it for me.

Click to expand...

I'm not very good at hand-holding interior shots at f/9
under ambient lighting. However, with a 2.8 lens down
around 10mm or so, I certainly am.

Suntan said:

I have no need for the fisheye, so that doesn't tempt me.

Click to expand...

And the fox, unable to leap high enough to snatch the
grapes from their vine, so loudly and publicly pretends
he was never tempted by their sweetness that he kills off
his own imagination long before it can begin to send
him dreams of jellied jams and succulent sultanas,
of crisp clarets and plush ports. After all, why would he
want those things--and why should anybody else?

Just kidding. I bet you would surprise yourself.

There really is a great deal more than one can do with such
a lens than might be immediately obvious to those who
have not explored its domain. Think of this selective blindness
to possibility as a variant form of the Sapir-Whorf conjecture
acting in the photographic domain, for you shall never see the
secret world unlocked by a lens that you will not condescend
to hold before your eye.

--tom

But a 10mm FE has a different and wider FOV than a 10mm rectilinear.

And many of us find a 2.8 speed very useful for low-light focus, even when exposing at (say) f9.

So...while you may not be tempted, all well and good. But I don't think you even understand it.

A carefully shot FE capture can minimize apparent distortion, and have incredible depth of field and sharpness; these lenses are also very flare-resistant since all rays are image-forming.

So...I am tempted by the 4.5...already have the 10.5 2.8.

Suntan said:

Very interesting, but my 10-20 already gives me 10mm. As I never
shoot it at less than f9 the 2.8 doesn't really do it for me.

I have no need for the fisheye, so that doesn't tempt me.

-Suntan

Click to expand...

CeeDave said:

A carefully shot FE capture can minimize apparent distortion, and
have incredible depth of field and sharpness; these lenses are also
very flare-resistant since all rays are image-forming.

Click to expand...

How in the world do you minimize distortion in a circular image like a 4.5 makes? Why would you want to? That's the whole point of a circular fisheye! And not to sounds like a total contrarian, but fisheyes flair easy, perhaps because it can be very hard to not get the light source in such a vast field of view. But in all three FE lenses I have, you have to constantly watch out for it.

Bobby Handal said:

They are very interesting - that proves that they are a lot of
fisheye lovers out there.
One thing that bugs me is that their close focusing ability is not as
good as the nikkor or as the Tokina fisheye zoom, these almost touch
the front of the lens !!!!

Click to expand...

You should read the specs before posting here, both the Sigma fish eye lenses focus closer than the Nikkor and the Tokina.

The Nikkor close focus distance on the Nikkor is 14cm, whilst on the Sigma circular FE it is 13.5cm and on the other Sigma FE hte close focus distance is 1.8cm!
You want to get 1.8cm away from a spider to photograph it???

Still waiting for the corrected dx wide angle prime... :-(

Hi
It says on both lenses that they have a view of 180 degrees.
If this is so, how does the 4.5mm and 10mm differ to eachother?
is one a round view? whereas the other has less distortion?

on the specs if the 10mm it says 180 on nikon.
the 4.5 is also 180 degrees

someone educate me please.

Thongus said:

Hi
It says on both lenses that they have a view of 180 degrees.
If this is so, how does the 4.5mm and 10mm differ to eachother?
is one a round view? whereas the other has less distortion?

on the specs if the 10mm it says 180 on nikon.
the 4.5 is also 180 degrees

someone educate me please.

Click to expand...

The 4.5 is a Circular Fisheye. This means that the actual image is round. Something akin to vignetting all around the image forming a perfect circle with the round corners cut off.
The other Fisheye provides a 180deg rectangular image that fill the DX frame.

They put HSM in lenses which don't even need AF like the new Fishes, the 10-20 and the 12-24 (use the scale is enough) but miss it off crucial lenses like the 80-400OS, 18-50 F2.8, 24-60, 24-70 F2.8s etc ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

thanks .. hm wonder which one most ppl would get..
There are plenty of HSM lenses
including the 18-50 2.8 hsm and 17-70 2.8-4 hsm

Adam, Sigma now make a 18-50 f2.8 HSM, but i agree, they need either an 80-400 HSM or give the 50-500 OS...

Thie 4.5mm is going to be a weird lens though... i wonder what the image circle is on FX?

Adam-T said:

They put HSM in lenses which don't even need AF like the new Fishes,
the 10-20 and the 12-24 (use the scale is enough) but miss it off
crucial lenses like the 80-400OS, 18-50 F2.8, 24-60, 24-70 F2.8s etc
..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

--



http://paulgibbs.fotoblog.co.uk/

Thongus said:

Hi
It says on both lenses that they have a view of 180 degrees.
If this is so, how does the 4.5mm and 10mm differ to eachother?
is one a round view? whereas the other has less distortion?

on the specs if the 10mm it says 180 on nikon.
the 4.5 is also 180 degrees

someone educate me please.

Click to expand...

The 10mm covers 180° across the diagonal, and the image fills the entire rectangular frame. While the 4.5mm don't fill the entire frame, but gives a circular image that covers 180° top-to-bottom, left-to-right, diagonally, etc. There is also the older Sigma 8mm fisheye, that covers 180° horisontally (and hence also diagonally), but not vertically.

Adam-T said:

They put HSM in lenses which don't even need AF like the new Fishes,
the 10-20 and the 12-24 (use the scale is enough)

Click to expand...

Why rule out sales to D40 users by missing out on HSM? Especially when Nikon don't offer AF-S in their DX fisheye. That would be a good way to miss out on potential business; I'd have thought that the average D40 user would be more likely to go for the cheaper fisheye option and would prefer AF, even if it's not really needed.

Also, a lot of people use fisheyes/uber-wides for very close up sports action - skateboarding, mountain biking, etc. Surely HSM can't hurt in those situations.

--
Hamish

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://theflyingpie.zenfolio.com

I did read the specs:

"The minimum focusing distance of 13.5cm/5.3inch and maximum magnification of 1:6 make it particularly useful for close-up photography."

Even if you take the measurement from the Focal plane indicator on the camera it is still not as close as the tokina or the nikkor. The only thing I know is that I can focus almost as close as the front element specially with the Tokina.

Why would you want that... not necessarily insects, but the special effects generated with such ability are mind boggling combined with the deph of field that can be achieved with these type of lenses.

but anyway, it is still very close enough, the sigma lenses sound very interesting indeed

Peace.
--



http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2180