>Interesting. I take it that wall at the back is ACTUALLY >curved > >Edit: hmmm no it can't be. The correction seems to have >straightened out one orientation of barrel distortion but not >the other? > >Best regards, SteveK >
Steve, that's the way the hemi plug-in works. It does a nice job of maintaining the horizontal perspective of the image without stretching the sides like CNX2 does but vertical perspective remains curved. I don't know of any programs that do a perfect job of defishing. Even though I have the hemi plug-ins I prefer the fisheye images as they come out of the camera in most cases.
I regret selling my 10.5 fisheye and replacing it with the FX 16 mm. The images with the 16 mm are much softer and lack the punch of the 10.5mm. I read on Nikon Rumors that Nikon is working on an update to the ages old 16 mm design and if that is true I will be number 1 in line for it.
>I regret selling my 10.5 fisheye and replacing it with the FX >16 mm. The images with the 16 mm are much softer and lack the >punch of the 10.5mm. I read on Nikon Rumors that Nikon is >working on an update to the ages old 16 mm design and if that >is true I will be number 1 in line for it.
The 10.5mm fisheye is recognized as having a sharper image. One question though, are you using the 16mm lens on a DX body? Your profile shows you have a D200 body.
- Consider that the 10.5mm is a considerably sharper lens than the 16mm.
- If one already owns the 10.5, it's paid for, while the 16mm is typically a $900 outlay or thereabouts.
- On modern FX cameras, the DX crop area is 10-15mp.
- Most fisheye images are used for artistic rather than commercial purposes, and frankly I think I've seen exactly one fisheye image in my entire career that was printed larger than about 16x20.
- It's definitely NOT hard to produce a pretty excellent 16x24 from a 12mp file - it's certainly doable with good lenses on a D3 and a D2x. I assume that a 15mp DX crop from a D800 would be AT LEAST as good.
- Finally, the impact of fisheyes with their ultra-short focal lengths is to push detail away from the viewpoint. Most fisheye images rely much more strongly on composition than detail.
With all of this in mind, three things come to mind:
- If you have a 10.5mm already and are moving to FX, you might seriously consider keeping that lens rather than buying a 16/f2.8. It probably will meet all requirements. I wouldn't recommend this for a primary-use lens like a mid-range zoom, but how many fisheye images do most of us make?
- If you are on FX and considering a fisheye, consider the DX 10.5mm over the FX equivalents, for the above reasons.
- For those in the market for an FX fisheye, consider the Sigma 15/f2.8 as an alternative. I've owned all three and find that the FX lenses are about equivalent, and the 10.5mm is better in all regards except CA.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
>I realize that this goes against the grain, but: > >- Consider that the 10.5mm is a considerably sharper lens than >the 16mm. > >- If one already owns the 10.5, it's paid for, while the 16mm >is typically a $900 outlay or thereabouts. > >
Used 16s sell for around 600, and 450 of it can be offset by the sale of your paid-for 10.5.
I hate when people ask me what I see myself doing in 5 years...... I don't have 2020 vision!
I use the 10.5 on DX and have the Sigma 15mm and 8mm circular for FX. I got the FX fisheyes when I had 12MP bodies and didn't want the small file that resulted from DX crop mode.
Are the FX lenses as sharp as 10.5 Nikkor? No. Are they supposed to be? No.
As Brian says, they are for the overall effect, not for detail. And "de-fishing" an image is always a shaky proposition. That's not what the lens was designed for, so don't be surprised that it doesn't yield good results. If you don't want the fisheye effect, use one of the UWA zooms.
I've printed, and sold, fisheye images as large as 60x30 from a 12MP camera (sorry you can't see it, Brian, it would double your body count ). It is not unusual for me to print them 24 -32" wide. But they are not something you stand a foot away from to see detail, you stand back where you can see the full image and get the effect.
Like you I have the 16 f/3.5 which I like very much. However, I kept my 10.5 as well. The only thing I am not crazy about with the 10.5 is the Chromatic Aberration but it is certainly very sharp. I have never tried the 16 f/2.8. I like shooting stars with my 16 f/3.5 as I can use my D3s with its far superior high ISO capability.
You are of course correct that ACR is very good at removing CA but I don't always have it on which makes for another step in processing. It can be somewhat difficult to sort out which picture I want to bring into Camera Raw. I still love the lens.
>You are of course correct that ACR is very good at removing CA >but I don't always have it on which makes for another step in >processing. It can be somewhat difficult to sort out which >picture I want to bring into Camera Raw. I still love the >lens.
I do understand, I actually always have it on, and usually then have lens distortion on, and do not want that and often have to go turn that off (yes, I know I can preset it in Lightroom, just wish it would read my mind better and know what I want when!).
Really, I think camera manufacturers should screw all this wifi stuff, and concentrate on brain wave controls.