**Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Started Nov 19, 2010 | Discussions
Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 2,003
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Then how come the Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye is so small and light ? Perhaps making it rectilinear would increase its size but not by much IMHO. Don't forget that the lens composition/formula would be less complex than a zoom.

I'm sure any manufacturer can make a 12mm f/4 for DX that's more compact than the Sigma 10-20mm with better IQ. I'm not so sure that people would want f/2.8 on an ultra wide angle. While some would use it wide open, most would not.

SixDasher wrote:

No, this the pitfall of crop cameras. Extreme wide is hard to do if you want to keep it small and light. The 10-20 is already very small and light, just compare it to the 16-35VR. A 14mm DX will not be much smaller unless they make it f4-5.6, and most people would want f2.8 or better from a prime.

If the crop camera and 10-20 are already too big and heavy, you should ask yourself is DSLR is the way to go. Maybe u4/3 or good compact is a better option.

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 2,003
Re: This thread makes little sense.

I like the pictures coming out of my 10-20mm for the most part but I NEVER use it between 13mm and 20mm so why would I not desire a fixed ultra wide angle for DX and believe that if well implemented it would offer me even better IQ and probably would be smaller to boot.

As you can see, having a zoom lens for an ultra wide angle makes very little sense to me. The 12-24mm would give me nothing more. A lot of people shoot at the widest focal length most if not all of the time with ultra wides and this thread makes perfect sense to them (present company included).

Bob GB wrote:

A super wide angle lens 10-14 mm for DX cannot be made very small. The reason is that it need to be an extreme retro focus design. In addition the 12-24 is a very good lens and not that heavy.

If you take a look at existing lenses the Fisheye 10.5 mm weighs in at 305 g. This is a relatively small lens. In comparison the 12-24 weighs 465 g.

The FX 18/2.8 weighs 390 g and the 14/2.8 670 g.

stadl Junior Member • Posts: 28
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

If the 10.5 Fisheye is too extreme, It could be an option to look at the Tokina 10-17 Fish-eye, with the range of zoom, the distortion level is controllable to a degree, and at 17mm it's the same viewing angle as the Tokina 12-24 @ 12, so it complements it well. noticable smaller than the 12-24 too.

nikoj Contributing Member • Posts: 789
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

And I think 16-35 is not so heavy at all.

 nikoj's gear list:nikoj's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
swpars Regular Member • Posts: 149
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

I have no problems with the size and weight of the Tokina 12-24mm f4. It's no 80-200mm f2.8; it's pretty small and light. Takes nice images, too.

-- hide signature --

Equipment in plan.

 swpars's gear list:swpars's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +4 more
Phil_L Veteran Member • Posts: 3,125
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Crabby Guy wrote:

Why do I need something wider than 16mm? Take a photo of a building in Europe with its narrow streets or many places in nature that are just plain wider than 16mm on a DX sensor.

Have a good hard look at the new Sigma 8-16.

Wide , very sharp, not so small, light(ish) plastic construction, needs correction (PS CS5) for distortion with architecture.

My Nikkor AF-S 12-24G F4, not so wide, otherwise good, is likely for sale soon!
--
Phil_L

 Phil_L's gear list:Phil_L's gear list
Nikon D500 Phase One Capture One Pro
Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 2,003
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

The Sigma 8-16mm seems to be the sharpest ultra wide available right now. It's sharper than the Tokina 11-16mm. If you need filters, you are out of luck though.

Phil_L wrote:

Have a good hard look at the new Sigma 8-16.

Wide , very sharp, not so small, light(ish) plastic construction, needs correction (PS CS5) for distortion with architecture.

My Nikkor AF-S 12-24G F4, not so wide, otherwise good, is likely for sale soon!
--
Phil_L

kymarto Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

8-16: I love mine--retired my 11-16 Tokina and never looked back. Actually it is not so large: the integrated lens hood is the same diameter as the lens barrel, making it quite sleek.

kymarto Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: This thread makes little sense.

I disagree. While I often shoot a Sigma at 8mm, it is very nice to be able to zoom out to 12mm or so, although I rarely use it at 16mm. You lose a lot of rectilinear stretching already at 10mm, though 8mm is great for some shots where you either want the perspective or the wider coverage.

bgorum Forum Member • Posts: 58
Re: Like this Pentax lens?

swpars wrote:

The closest you'll get with current products is the Pentax 15mm f4.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608399-REG/Pentax_21800_Ultra_Wide_Angle_smc_DA.html

It's about $500 and relatively slow at f4, and not as wide as you were looking for.

A faster and wider lens will be more expensive and larger.
--
Equipment in plan.

I to, want Nikon to bring out a modest aperture, fixed focal length ultra-wide for dx, but for slightly different reasons than the OP. Wow, that Pentax lens looks pretty sweet to me if the optics are good! I have the Nikon 12-24, but it does not focus close enough (I noticed the Pentax 15 gets down to 7.1 inches, much better than the 12 inch mfd on the Nikon 12-24). I love the flare resistance of the 12-24, and it produces good color and contrast but I think the resolution of the 12-24 in the corners leaves a lot to be desired. I'd love it if Nikon made a lens like that Pentax lens, though I would like it a little wider. Bigger and more expensive would be fine if the image quality was top notch. I know Nikon already has a 14mm f2.8 that might meet my needs, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement out there about how good it is on digital and it's a pretty expensive lens to buy if it turns out to be no better than the 12-24.

_sem_ Veteran Member • Posts: 4,996
Re: Like this Pentax lens?

bgorum wrote:

I have the Nikon 12-24, but it does not focus close enough (I noticed the Pentax 15 gets down to 7.1 inches, much better than the 12 inch mfd on the Nikon 12-24).

There may be a workaround or two for close-focus at WA.

One is a very thin K5 extension tube, said to be useful with the AIS 20/3.5. Compatibility issues with modern lenses, especially G-style. Maybe also too thick for ultra-wide-angle.

The other is optical relay (made by reverse stacking a prime lens, just like one of the ad-hoc macro things) with the WA lens at a suitable distance in front. Not the most convenient setup around, likely affects IQ with all that glass, and limits the aperture, but may work for an occasional close-up, also for macro. Also, the Frazier patent says the relay may shrink the FL of the tip lens by a third (just about the crop factor).
http://www.google.com/...gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=36927077
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-16726.html
http://antfarm.yuku.com/topic/4178/t/The-wild-ant-photo.html

http://www.koheisha.net/microwidelenz/musinomekakakukousei/e-musinomelensomonasystem.html

Alberto Tanikawa
Alberto Tanikawa Senior Member • Posts: 1,911
The Nikkor 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 doesn't count? n/t
-- hide signature --

Alberto T.

 Alberto Tanikawa's gear list:Alberto Tanikawa's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D200 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF +12 more
edwardaneal
edwardaneal Veteran Member • Posts: 9,101
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

You are right - normal defishing as that done by almost all of the current software stretches the image away from the center to make things straight this can cause a huge loss of resolution

having said this there is the Image Trends plugin that remaps the image it is not true rectilinear conversion, but it does straighten out the vertical lines in images from the 10.5 without causing any noticeable loss in resolution

are these sharp enough for you?

and just for those who think 16 or 17mm is wide here is a comparison

shot at 17mm with the 17-55 f/2.8

taken from the same spot with the 10.5mm f/2.8

Crabby Guy wrote:

No offense to anyone, but I have yet to see a truly sharp photo taken with the Nikkor 10.5mm and then defished. I'm willing to use any sort of software.

-- hide signature --

My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 edwardaneal's gear list:edwardaneal's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 2,003
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

I'm interested in that Sigma 8-16mm. What do you do when you need a filter though ? Many is the time I need a polarizer or ND for my landscape shots.

Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 2,003
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Yes, sharp and good pictures but that evil 10.5mm CA is rearing it's ugly head in your last shot (look at the tree trunk to the right).

edwardaneal wrote:

You are right - normal defishing as that done by almost all of the current software stretches the image away from the center to make things straight this can cause a huge loss of resolution

having said this there is the Image Trends plugin that remaps the image it is not true rectilinear conversion, but it does straighten out the vertical lines in images from the 10.5 without causing any noticeable loss in resolution

are these sharp enough for you?

and just for those who think 16 or 17mm is wide here is a comparison

shot at 17mm with the 17-55 f/2.8

taken from the same spot with the 10.5mm f/2.8

Crabby Guy wrote:

No offense to anyone, but I have yet to see a truly sharp photo taken with the Nikkor 10.5mm and then defished. I'm willing to use any sort of software.

-- hide signature --

My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

edwardaneal
edwardaneal Veteran Member • Posts: 9,101
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Michel F wrote:

Yes, sharp and good pictures but that evil 10.5mm CA is rearing it's ugly head in your last shot (look at the tree trunk to the right).

It is true that the 10.5 can have so CA issues especially under harsh lighting conditions. Many of the wide angle lenses seem to have this issue. I only posted those last two shots as a focal length comparison. If you want one without the CA here is a shot from the same spot taken this last week. The lighting is much nicer and they have painted the building

-- hide signature --

My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 edwardaneal's gear list:edwardaneal's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
kymarto Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Like this Pentax lens?

The Sigma 8-16 focuses to 4" from the front element, and the corners are sharp. And it has excellent flare resistance.

OP Crabby Guy Senior Member • Posts: 1,418
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Yes, I like these photos!
--
Adrian

JurassicPizza
JurassicPizza Contributing Member • Posts: 804
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Michel F wrote:

Yes, sharp and good pictures but that evil 10.5mm CA is rearing it's ugly head in your last shot (look at the tree trunk to the right).

The 10.5's CA is easy to fix -- it cleans up completely in software.

-- hide signature --

JurassicPizza (TM)

 JurassicPizza's gear list:JurassicPizza's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Olympus Tough TG-4 Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M5 II +30 more
OP Crabby Guy Senior Member • Posts: 1,418
Re: The Nikkor 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 doesn't count? n/t

Can someone please express whether the Nikkor 10.5mm and Image Trends software or the Sigma 8-16mm is superior for my needs? Please assume that I'll have the Nikkor 16-85mm forever but will sell the 12-24mm to finance this transaction. The small difference in weight between the 10.5mm and 8-16mm is not so important as their comparative bulk.
--
Adrian

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads