Has anyone used both these lenses? Any comments? I have put in an order for the 10.5 at the local camera shop, but I was told it may be up to four weeks before I get it.
I may change my mind and consider the 12-24 which is available now. I am only looking for a really wide angle lens for use with digital at a reasonable price (this is mostly the reason I chose the 10.5 at the moment).
Comparing those two lenses is kind of apples and oranges stuff. However, I have used both and like them for different reasons. The 12-24 is a great coverage range on the Nikon digis, but I don't like the max f4 aperture, and the pricetag is a little hefty for such a slow lens, IMHO. But, the lens is very sharp, and at 12mm, you could cover the inside of a shoebox. The 10.5 is a fantastic lens. That will probably be my next purchase. I've used my boss' quite a bit. On a digital body, the distortion is not too severe, and I believe there's software out there to remove the distortion all together. If I were you, I'd wait the four weeks and then go play with the 10.5. I really think you'll like it. But again, all this depends on what you'll be using the lens for.
Will, I thought similarly to you in regards to the 12-24. I was able to use it at a local shop and it's okay, but I'm not sure I want that much weight.
I tried the 10.5 mm at the Nikon School when it was in town and was amazed at how light it was and at the coverage. I am looking for a lens to be used on digital that is wider than my 18-35 mm, which is currently my widest angle Nikon lens (and fine with film), but at a reasonable price. The 10.5 mm fits this bill.
p.s. I forgot to say that for the most part, I'll be using the lens for landscapes and maybe some occasional interior shots.
I had a 10.5 and returned it. Maybe I'm too critical but the magenta and green color fringing was a dissapointment. In some high contrast situations the fringing was severe, increasing worse as you get further from center. Fringing around vertical lines was noticable to those even without my critical eye. It was a fun lens, the fisheye look provides novelty value and artistic flexibility, but for >$600 I expected better.
I borrowed a 12-24 and was pleased with it. I may buy this lens for a wider FOV than my 17-35.
Unless you're really sure you like using a fisheye, I'd suggest you get the much more versatile zoom with its linear perspective. Yes, you can "unfish" the fisheye via computer processing, but this does compromise image quality somewhat and you end up with an angle of view no wider than 12mm as the perspective is straightened out.
BJ is right on the money as usual. If you want a wide angle, get the 12-24. The 10.5 is a fisheye. To get a wide angle image with the 10.5 you need to shoot with that intention, as well as unfish in post. As you move from the horizontal centerline, things get strange fast. People on the wide edges (even dead center) gain 50 pounds in the unfished view. I enjoy the lens, but it isn't really a substitute for a wide angle. Also, the zoom is extremely useful for composition in the super wide range.
I have both lenses! was out yesterday with the 10.5 fisheye it is a great lens but even if you were to straighten the picture out in Capture it just is not the same. it is a fun lens but not one that you will want to use everyday. some samples.
Those are great shots--much better than any of my efforts with the 10.5. People that haven't shot with this lens have no idea how hard it is to get the perspective to work. I love your church shot. Bravo.