When I get home tonight the lens will be waiting for me. We are going to the Jersey Shore in the morning to take beach and lighthouse pics. Our 6 Year old Son needs them for a school project. He will use his D70 and my D200. I will post pics when we get home. Thanks! Alan
This is such a great lens, I really love it. I sometimes thing it is unfairly marginalised as a speciality lens when in reality it is enormously flexible as well giving great creative results. I love it for its being fast, very light, having great colour rendition and high contrast.
What I never see people using it for is macro. It is a wonderful macro lens. http://ianspector.smugmug.com/gallery/1378867/6/65228376 here is a link to a macro shot of a snail in the rain forest in madagascar. The snail was probably only a couple of centimetres from the front element of the lens and yet the rest of the field is still obvious.
It is a lens that makes me play real photographer, rolling round on my back photographing upwards, downwards, tight in etc.
When I first got the lens I would always convert to rectilinear with Capture, now I am much more likely to shoot for the field curvature and enjoy it.
It, believe it or not, is a great creative portrait lens; once you get the feel for how it curves you shoot accordingly.
Even on my weighty D2x it provides a welcome relief to have something so light on the front.
I hope to see some of your lighthouse pictures with you shooting upwards right up the lighthouse!
Some good pictures being posted here. It is funny, there are not many Nikon lenses that have such a strong signature; or are so easily identifiable. If I am honest I doubt if I could tell the difference from a print if it was taken with a 17-55 or an 18-200 or a 17-35 etc. But here is a lens that really allows you to take a fresh view and do something that you just would not try with 'straight' glass.
Also, it is good to see Nikon committed to this lens as seen by the robust construction; this is not a toy lens. It always strikes me as standing out in terms of value for money in the Nikon range.
I just picked up this lens today at my local shop. Total impulse buy-- you never know when NAS will strike. Before it got too dark, I had just enough time for a quick snapshot of Otter, our golden retriever puppy.
>Nobody has mentioned what a great landscape lens this is and >that this lens flares direct sun in a star shape without >filters...not to mention the deeper blue sky you can pull >with this lens... > >http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~drg34/southCoyote.jpg
What a magnificient photo you have captured, wonderful stuff!
This thread helped me to get mine out again and try some night shots. I got one of these 10.5's in the beginning of October and it really is one of the most fun lenses to play with. I'll have to try a vertical panorama and map it into QT VR.
Here's a link to one of my favorite night-time fisheye shots.
This thread has been killing me. I've been wishing for one of these lens for several years now, but the cost has always been a hurdle. I've never sold a photo and this is "only a hobby!" How can a lense with so much distortion cost so much?
I'm beginning to think that the best cure for NAS is staying away from this site. I don't suppose anyone would be willing to lend me a copy for my trip to France in Feb?
Mark in UT- I'll gladly lend you mine for your France trip if you can lend me an underwater housing for a D50 or D70s for my December holiday trip to the carribean...any chance you have one for your UT diving???
>Mark in UT- >I'll gladly lend you mine for your France trip if you can >lend me an underwater housing for a D50 or D70s for my >December holiday trip to the carribean...any chance you have >one for your UT diving???
This is amazing! I have been fishing around in my mind for a decision re: buy it, don't buy it, the it being the Fisheye. Then I join the Nikonians and find this thread.
I love the lens for a lot of reasons. Mainly it is a more creative lens. The distortion is useful when you want it: http://homepage.mac.com/greystoke.eng/.Pictures/Picture%20Examples/North%20Star%2010.5.jpg>
And you can make the curves go away with careful framing:
Besides, it weighs next to nothing in the bag and adds a whole new dimension to your work. Things don't always have to be square. When I use it for work, especially in tight places, it gets the job done. You just need two flashes.
All I can say is WOW!! I've just read through all 62 threads. I didn't realise this lens was that good or is it just the photographers? I think NAS has bitten. I was going to get the 105 VR for macro but after this --------- I'm seriously considering the 10.5.
Hedley Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas
I'd hate to think us film users get left out of this fisheye bonanza.
I bought an old Sigma 16mm for my F4 just to see how much fun this would be. It was a little soft at the edges and stop-down only but I was hooked. What can I say, within a few months I upgraded to the Nikkor 16mm f3.5.
Just like your 10.5mm, great lenses, great photos. I've a few posted including a beach photo of my own - Irish style!
Everyone here has found their own way of making the lens work for them. In my opinion I am not moved to photograph with this lens in spite of its 'distortion' but because of it. It makes one hunt out curves and ponder what will happen at different angles and distances.
What people have demonstrated (and I hope will continue to demonstrate) is that this lens can be used as a very useful ultra wide angle as well as a lens that opens up creative possibilities.
I have included a picture of a spider's web to demonstrate a rare occurence with this lens, its bokeh. I was at the near focus point to manage to throw the background out of focus. Near with this lens really takes on a whole new meaning. The spider and I are still occasionally write.
The opening fern bescause I was looking for curved objects to wrap the world around. It was really just sticking out the ground.
The tropical sunset off the sea because as others have shown, this lens does so well pointed into the sun. There is some purple fringing in the top left and I left it here to help people quantify this effect. All modern lenses are so good one can jump upon any anomaly. This would take just a few seconds to correct in Capture and Photoshop. In fact NX seems to do this a number of ways but for an image like this dropping a control point on the purple and turning down the red removes it.
I recommend you immerse yourself in a lens, and this one more than most. These are all from a 'totally 10.5' day. I took nothing but my D2x and the 10.5. When I don't have a tripod, a 70-200VR, a 200mm micro etc I am committed. Some of my best shooting days ever.
Looks like a great lens. I want to pick myself up one of thoes. I have the D50. Looks like a real fun lens to have. I shoot lots of skateboarding and such so I think it would be a cool lens to own. Looking great!
So a question to all of you Nikon fisheye owners, does this new Tokina lens seem interesting or should I just stay focused with the Nikon fisheye? I've never shot with a fisheye, but have always appreciated the interesting views from this lens.
Get the Nikkor. I have never used non-Nikon glass and I have never really been attracted to it. Personally I chose my system based on the quality of the lenses and the range offered.
This is not a relatively expensive lens and I think that people are nervous because they still see it as a frivolous gimmick lens. Perhaps this thread has persuaded some people otherwise.
I have taken a rough stab at listing my lenses in increasing order of price weighted for the number of shots I take with that lens.
The cheapest would be my 10.5mm. My list would look something like
10.5 200mm micro F4 AF 85mm 1.4 70-200 VR 28mm 1.4 (new but moving up the table as it is rarely off the camera!) 12-24 80-400 24-120 VR
Thus even a low cost lens that stays in my case is a very expensive per-click item. Thus my 24-120 (albeit a fine lens) is my most expensive. This is personal but I will choose a lens (currently the 28mm 1.4) and just shoot loads with it. I would use the 24-120 if the task required it but I am not inspired to go out shooting with just that lens.
I wonder what other people's price lists would look like?
I've never used the Tokina. However, I probably wouldn't bother with it myself. After using the 10.5mm prime for a couple of years now, I have virtually never found an instance where I needed or even wanted a different fisheye perspective. With other primes I've often felt very constrained at a fixed focal length and thus relatively fixed perspective, but not with the fisheye. Since they cost about the same, I'd opt for the Nikkor.
This might be different if the Tokina had zoomed from fisheye to rectilinear, that is stayed at a relatively fixed focal length but the distortion changed. In fact, I might have bought it in addition to the Nikkor if it were like that. But it retains its fisheye character all the way to 17mm, where it is just mild.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
This thread has certainly added some fuel to my NAS for the 10.5 DX. I already have a 12-24/4 so taking a shot and defishing would not be the reason I would get it. There have been some wonderful examples of how people are using this lens in this thread. I am just wondering though that after the initial playing around with it, would I use it that much or would it even make it into an overly crowded bag on a routine basis. I wonder how many people get this lens and it ultimately ends up collecting dust after the intial gee whiz factor has worn out. I am on the fence about this lens but actually I have had recent thoughts about getting it before even reading this thread.
I guess I "think" fisheye more than others do, but the 10.5mm is almost the last to leave my bag. It's a small lens, and removing it doesn't save that much. Partly as a result, it gets used almost every trip - which is one reason why I have a fair number of interesting images from it. I have used it consistently for two years.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
This certainly is the right question; nothing sadder than unused glass sitting in a box forever. Personally I cannot imagine going on a trip without the 10.5. As I have been travelling by air to the US last week and France this week I have been carrying on my photographic equipment and checking everything else due to so much lost baggage of late. (Of course this seemed like a great plan until I wound up in Oregon last week whilst all my luggage decided to break its journey in San Francisco. Have you ever tried brushing your teeth with a D2x).
For these trips I took only my 10.5, 28 1.4 and 85 1.4. The 10.5 was used for all the 360 degree pans, all the indoor shooting and some macro shooting as I did not have my 200mm micro. I also got some great portraits with the 10.5. All my lenses that I use often require an X factor to inspire me. The 10.5 has X factors in spades. It does so much well. The underwater picture just posted is an example of the stunning results possible in frentic situations where all you can really do is be there and press a button.
With all the interest generated here you could always tell yourself that you could sell it again should you tire of it (but I know you won't).
The 10.5mm is also a great lens to have when you just HAVE to get that celebrity shot.
Tom Cruise working the crowd, taken at the Mission Impossible III premiere at London's, Leicester Square. Cruise is a complete applause junky and it's virtually impossible to get a decent long shot of him. So while the press photos were craning for a shot on top of their stepladders I just reach over one handed with a D70, 10.5mm and SB800 with diffuser fitted and just aim in the general direction knowing that pretty much everything will be in focus no matter what I do.
All this must be great for Brian Delaney who is selling his 10.5 on this site at the moment! How could anyone see these images and not be moved.
For people who think that it just for gimmick shots and does not have any real life wide angled relevance here is a snap of my kitchen. No processing other than clicking defish in Capture.
One thing I notice from all the shots posted is that they are all more dramatic for being a fisheye picture as opposed to just being very wide. Look at the Tom Cruise picture and how the plan pulls the eye into the subject. Also to Brian's indoor canal above, how the field curvature pulls the eye into the strong central line of the roof.
I always notice how people talk about 'skateboard' shots with this lens. I am sure all of us who use this lens get a shudder to think how darned close to the action the camera really is. My shot above of the white flower had the flower itself no more than 2 cm in front of the lens (for those of you in the US that is approximately 3 bushels). I had to keep cleaning pollen of the front element!
I love the work that Dave Black does with this lens (well with any lens for that matter). For those interested in sports photography should definately check out his site.
Ian, Nice Kitchen Brian Tilley's picked it up I agree its a nice lens, but I found I just wasn't using it much. I find the 35mm equivalent of 20mm just fine for wide angles. I've just got an Olympus E400 and I think a 11-22 2.8-3.5 for that will get more use than the fisheye for the D2X. Best wishes
Please stop posting these photos! Somewhere in this house is a 10.5 that I can't get my hands on until Dec 25, but if you guys keep posting those gorgeous images I'm likely to commit a major domestic faux pas!
One of my favourite uses of this lens is for panoramas. This is a quick snap of my 4 quads' bedroom. Here just 4 images taken in the vertical plane cover 360 degrees. Probably 60 seconds to take the images, it would have been more had I got the children to pick up their clothes!
With a field of view so big even for Quick Time VR movies I don't really need to patch the azimuth or nadir.
I would love to see other (more inspired) panoramas with this lens.
Fish-eye Hemi works very nicely with the 10.5. It only corrects for vertical curvature so it does not fully "de-fish" an image. If you keep the horizontal lines close to the center the Fish-Eye Hemi result will look pretty rectilinear with very little reduction in FOV.