For really wide-angle views, does it make sense to buy a Nikon DX 10.5mm fisheye and convert the image to a normal rectangular shape using Capture 4 if one already has the 12-24mm? Will the difference in the view/coverage be phenominal? As usual, thanks in advance.
IMO at least, the 10.5 fisheye is a great lens, but not one that lends itself to use as a de-fished super-wide. THe 12-24 is the widest regular lens I have. To me, the 10.5 is a unique view that should be left as a fisheye.
You will also find that the defish process also changes the image in ways that are much more than the simple "stretching" of the coverage. Because defishing takes a spherical image and flattens it out, it even changes the *orientation* of items near the edges! In extreme cases, you can even have the relationship between two items change.
If you want greater rectilinear coverage, you can get it from the Sigma 10-20. I've posted a comparison of images here.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Very good comparison of the de-fisheyed Nikon 10.5 and Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm.
Question. Your text indicates that you got the 12mm photo based on the engraved number on the barrel of your Sigma. I would be interested in a comparison of Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm, vs Nikon and Tamron 12-24 @ 12mm, just to see how much difference there is between those lenses at the wide end.
>You will also find that the defish process also changes the >image in ways that are much more than the simple >"stretching" of the coverage. Because defishing takes a >spherical image and flattens it out, it even changes the >*orientation* of items near the edges! In extreme cases, >you can even have the relationship between two items change. > >If you want greater rectilinear coverage, you can get it >from the Sigma 10-20. I've posted a comparison of images >here.
I also have this lens and agree with the others: it's best to use it strictly as a fisheye, although the de-fished option could be a decent "emergency" approach. The problem with de-fishing is that the quality drops substantially toward the edges and it's not possible to get an accurate preview of the image in the viewfinder. Again, it's a cool thing to have as an option if you have no other choice, but it's not something I do often.
Other comments: like Nikon's other fisheye lenses, this lens is amazingly sharp toward the center of the frame. For best results toward the edges, use a tool to reduce chromatic aberration. Photoshop CS2 includes a tool to do this (Lens Correction) and many RAW converters also include options for reducing it.
I'm not a huge fisheye fan, but it sure is fun to use at times.
Nikon Capture 4's "de-fisheye" loses a lot of the image, and leaves you with really substantial chromatic aberration.
Panotools "Remap" action gives you much more of the frame, but you still have chromatic aberration.
I have a couple of images which I've used for commercial print which I shot on Fisheye and then converted, but I then had to spend ages touching out the chromatic aberration.
If you shoot a lot of extreme wide angle, then a regular wide-angle lens will serve you better. My widest lens is 17mm, which is already as distorted as I usually like to be, in terms of perspective distortion. For me the Fisheye is a handy way to get a shot when it's not possible to capture it with the 17mm length. However, in such cases I try to shoot it as a true fisheye, moving the lens to keep straight lines through the centre, where they stay straight.