Thu 12-May-11 04:36 AM | edited Thu 12-May-11 04:39 AM by ZoneV
I've got this idea in the back of my mind...
Right now, my widest lens is 15mm (22.5mm equivalent when used with DX).
Am thinking of keeping my eyes out for a used 16mm fisheye, maybe an older manual focus Nikkor, or a Zenitar 16mm. The goal would be to get wider on the DX sensor for less money. I don't really care about distortion; we have software anyway.
So how wide is a 16mm fisheye on a DX camera? What focal length in rectillinear designs would it provide similar coverage to? What about after touching up distortion? Do you lose much coverage in doing so with software?
It's got to be wider than a standard 24mm used on FX. But the question is, is it wider than 22.5mm? And by much?
Figured I'd be more likely to get responses here, since most are using the newer (but more expensive) AF-D lens.
It's quite a bit wider, but the problem is that it's a half-fisheye. The FX fisheye on DX is a weird half-breed. It's got a ton of barrel distortion, which is the whole point of a fisheye, but because it's DX it only has the central 40% of the frame, which is where the distortion is the mildest. So you end up with a result that clearly has distortion, but misses the point of a fisheye. Some have argued that it is a useful compromise, but I think that it's clearly not rectilinear and clearly not really a fisheye.
I think that if you want to go wider on DX, just get a Sigma 8-16.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
This may not be exactly what you asked for but here's a comparison of the 10.5 mm fisheye designed for the DX sensor, then fisheye correction in NX2 and then compared to the AF 14mm f2.8. The photos were taken in my engineering lab, just before I retired in 2004, with a D1X.
This is the automatic correction of the same photo in NX2. Note the elongation of the scope case on the right.
Here are comparison shots, labeled appropriately. The one with the angled text is the 15mm on DX, defished with Lightroom. Use only for comparison of FOV, I didn't take any care at all in IQ - hand held, not even sure what aperture was used.
Fri 13-May-11 12:18 AM | edited Fri 13-May-11 12:35 AM by JerryT
I use the 16mm f2.8 fisheye on both DX and FX and like the "fisheye point of view." I also have a 14mm f2.8 but it of course doesn't give me the perspective I'm looking for with the 16mm. The 16mm f2.8 fisheye is a fun lens for me to use and I've enjoyed going out with it as my only lens and seeing what I could create with it.
I use the 14mm f2.8 or 14-24 when I want a true ultra wide perspective and rarely, if ever, correct the photos taken with the 16mm f2.8 fisheye. They scream "fisheye" and that's exactly what I want.
Sorry I don't know what the exact coverage is of the 16mm. Whatever I've always found it useful. It is a par excellence fisheye lens IMHO.