Difference between 10mm wide-angle and 10.5mm fisheye

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
I'm having trouble understanding what designates a lens as a fisheye lens if the focal length is the same as (or can be the same as) a wide-angle lens.

For example - the NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX is a Fisheye, the same with the 16mm f/2.8D. Why not just get the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED wide-angle that would cover both focal lengths and more? Is it because of the higher aperture of the fisheyes?
 

KennethHamlett

New member
Hey jdeg, the difference is the zoom lens is not a true fisheye because at the 10mm setting it does not have a wide enough field of coverage (only 109 degrees). The fixed focal length lenses each cover the required 180 degrees to be considered a true fisheye lens. Even the 14mm f/2.8 is just considered an ultra-wide angle because it only covers 114 degrees not 180. Hope that helps clear it up.
 

EdgyPhoto

New member
A little more correctly.... A 10mm wide angle lens will be recti-linear (maintains straight lines as best as possible) whereas the 10.5 fisheye aarounds everything in the traditional "fisheye" sense. The 10.5 fisheye is 180-degrees **diagonally** thus it still fills the full frame rather than creating a round image that would be a full 180-degrees in all directions.

So these 10-20 / 10-24 / 12-24 etc ultra-wide angle zooms are rectilinear wide zooms, though I *think* the Tamron 11-16 (or something like it, slips my mind exactly just now) is actually supposed to be more of a true "fisheye" zoom, though of course still not the true full circular fisheye.

EricB
 

johnwartjr

Senior Member
I have the 10.5 fisheye, and honestly, don't find it real useful. It's neat to play with from time to time, but I'd be a whole lot happier with a fast wide angle regular lens - the 14-24 2.8 is on my list for 'someday'.

I'll probably grab one of those with the D700 replacement, assuming Nikon does their usual 'instant rebate' on a camera and lens if purchased together next summer.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
My wife and I just got a Tokina 11mm wide angle and a 10.5 fisheye. In terms of magnification they are similar, however the fisheye can take a 180 degree shot compared to about 104 on the Tokina.

If you are after an ultra wide for landscapes go for a lens like the Tokina. If you want an extreme field of view with the curvy effects get the fisheye.

I actually like both but for different things. With corrective software like DXO the fisheye pics can be corrected to give impressive panorama or even indoor shots. That said, whilst good, it is not as crisp and sharp as the Tokina.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
I have been watching closely on the Tokina 11-16 lens for a while. I am trying to find myself a good excuse to buy it. Right now, I am actually quite happy with my Tamron 17-50 which covers most of my wide angle needs. I am still trying to see how often and what are the situations when I need the 11-16 mm.

Beside $, having to keep changing the lens is also another consideeration.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Update - since my last post my wife has traded her 10.5 for the Tokina 11-16. Yes the 10.5 was fun for a while, but for six months she was envious of my Tokina and finally admitted it. Unless you have a regular requirement for it, a normal UWA is probably a better option.

When I spoke to the shop where we part exed the 10.5, I told the guy it was in mint condition. Yes he said, every one we ever get is!! I think that tells a story.
 
Top