Time for a Nikon equivalent to Canon 8-15 F4 fisheye?

LorenzoLorenzo Posts: 14Member
edited January 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
Isn't it time for Nikon to come out with a quality FX fisheye lens? Maybe something like Canon's supposedly stellar 8-15 F4 fisheye zoom? For DX, there is the very good 10.5 fisheye, but for FX there is just the very old 16mm fish which I've read is not the sharpest. With so many people jumping on the D600 and D800 bandwagons, why doesn't Nikon produce an 8-15mm F4 AF-S fisheye zoom or something similar? Come out with that and an updated 300mm F4 VR and I'll be a happy camper! Seems that while Nikon is really beating out Canon with their bodies, Canon has a lot of bases well covered with lenses that Nikon is neglecting. Just my .02 -L
Post edited by Lorenzo on

Comments

  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Not against the notion of the fish, but I think slowish teles and a 100-400 5.6 or 6.3 (or similar...) would all sell better than the fish. Right/wrong I think most D600 owners can see themselves using a 100-400 5.6 more than they can see themselves using a zoom-fish. No interest in slow teles myself, just taking the other side here from a sales point of view.
  • LorenzoLorenzo Posts: 14Member
    I hear what you are saying regarding sales, and I know Nikon's decisions are driven by 1 motivation and it is what is going to profit for them, but with the relative popularity of the Canon variant, I would think Nikon would come up with something of quality and newer technology for FX fisheye, even if not a zoom and just a quality prime.

    I agree that teles would sell better, and they need to get on that in a serious way. I would think a 400mm F5.6 AF-S VR lens at a reasonable price tag would sell like hotcakes. I'd much prefer that lens over a slow tele zoom, and would also prefer it to an updated 300mm F4 AF-S.
  • schmizzschmizz Posts: 1Member
    Me too I can't wait to get a new FX fisheye from Nikon. I had the 10.5 DX fisheye and I loved it for the quality of the images and even more for the fact that you can focus and take pictures from very close, only some few centimeters distance. What a disappointment after switching to the FX body and buying the old 16mm fisheye! Not only it looks like made just after WW2, the closest focus point is much further away and the image never as brilliant as the DX one.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited September 2013
    It would be nice for Nikon to bring forth a new fisheye for the FX line. Having said that, I think you will find the performance of the 10.5 on Nikon new line of FX bodies to be very rewarding. Here just a few images for your evaluation.

    ARN_8537.jpg

    D4 10.5 Fisheye DX 1/125 ISO 100 @ f/14
    Larger Image Size

    ARN_8634.jpg

    D4 10.5 Fisheye DX 1/320 ISO 100 @ f/10
    Larger Image Size
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Fish-eyes are specialty lenses that are rarely used well and are better suited to "showing" or "evoking emotion" rather than "a landscape." Personally I don't like them as most try to force them to be used on images that are better suited for a UWA (ultra wide angle) or stitching images trying to show "vast-ness". Usually it fails. (Please take no offence Golf007sd) But Golf007sd's images illustrate that well - the top's subject is emotion and it works well - bottom suffers from too strong of curvature in the forefront and becomes a bit distracting. It takes a lot of work to get good at using them, but those that do put the years in to learn, get some great results.
    No fisheye is "tack" sharp as the distortion (by design) is the limiter. Nikon's 16mm is sharp, and sharper than most in the center. But that is not why you buy them nor should be a consideration for a choice. I have a Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye that I rarely use but is nice to have for some situations. I got it really cheap ($225) so I just keep it. I think I have only made one shot out of 1000s that I really liked from it.

    Tokina makes a 10-17 fisheye (DX & FX (hoodless) versions) that covers the ground for Nikon. I think Tamron may have something similar as well.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @TTJ: No insult taken. Your points are very valid.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    ...and I think your B&W image is amazingly good.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited September 2013
    I don't mind using fisheye for landscapes or for anything else. Why not? Use what you've got creatively.

    image
    aurora borealis, yellowknife, northwest territories

    I might have posted this one before, but anyway it's a landscape taken with the 10.5 DX.

    Sometime ago I submitted this picture as part of my Professional Photographers of Canada (PPoC) portfolio and it got very high marks from the judges.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,363Moderator
    edited September 2013
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited September 2013
    TTJ is quite right in stating that: Fish-eye lenses are "specialty lenses." I use the lens with a creative mindset. The distortion to me is in itself part of the creativity and perspective. The lens images produced are pleasing to some and not to others. Much like HDR photography. I say, let the chips fall where they may; hence to each his own.

    Lets us all hope that Nikon does come out with a new lens in the near future, thus allowing us all to be more creative.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    @msmoto is that another shot from the lens you took the knife to? That's just a great image. I wish I had the guts to pick up one of those lenses and perform surgery.

    @Ade: I'm sure you did--beautiful.
  • kyoshinikonkyoshinikon Posts: 410Member
    I love my 10.5mm... I am more interested in an aspherical 10mm f/4 lens. I have always wanted the 6mm f/2..8 but with the recent value jump I wont be affording one anytime soon... 10 years ago I could have picked up one for $700 at samys.
    “To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It’s at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy.” - Bresson
  • mikepmikep Posts: 280Member
    TTJ thanks for that info, makes a great point

    im just guessing, but it seems to be the warp of perspectives from left to centre to right that removes the "vastness" feeling .... vast at the edges, but normal in the centre

    i do like that portrait though, golf .... it looks very normal in the centre there, the subjects are not distorted, but gradually it becomes more so towards the edges .... same for msmoto

    fish eye is not something i know anything about, but id love to play with one


  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,363Moderator
    @shawnino

    Yes, this is the modified 10.5 mm....it does not require much in the way of guts, but requires a bit of patience and care. And, even if one scratches the edges, it probably would not make a lot of difference as one of the members shoots a 10.5 which is cracked I do believe, with no significant loss of resolution.
    Msmoto, mod
  • kyoshinikonkyoshinikon Posts: 410Member
    That would be my 10.5mm... Ugliest 10.5mm on the planet but still sharp.
    “To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It’s at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy.” - Bresson
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,363Moderator
    @kyoshinikon

    Thanks, I did not want to use any names....LOL
    Msmoto, mod
  • KillerbobKillerbob Posts: 729Member
    I love fisheye photography, and just wish I had USD85K lying around. A few days ago NR listed a Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 AI fisheye lens being offered for sale on eBay, and it is currently at USD85K...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Sigma has an 8mm and a 4.5mm fisheye in their line up. They are both Circular Fisheyes and I find terribly hard to shoot with and just gave up on using them. Msmoto finds some great shots with her's though!
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Hmm, the main blog just raised the possibility of a new 16mm fisheye being announced soon. That's unexpected...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited September 2013
    Seems like Nikon is forging forward to updating it's entire lens lineup.

    Last tally what is left to add AFS.
    14 f/2.8 • 18mm f/2.8 • 20mm f/2.8 • 24mm f/2.8 • 35 f/2 • 105DC f/2 • 135DC f/2 • 180 f/2.8 • 200 macro f/4 •••• Time for update (maybe?) 300 f/4, 70-300vr, 17-35 f/2.8, 1.7 TC, 105vr, 70-180macro. 28 f/2.8 - Those are at or close to the 10yr mark.
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • kyoshinikonkyoshinikon Posts: 410Member
    I see it is only a marketing gag as to why they have to update EVERY lens intheis lineup. I'd like to see another innovation for once... My 14-24mm is proof that they are capable of success releasing a patented lens to the market... They really should cut the 14mm f/2.8 from their lineup fully...
    “To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It’s at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy.” - Bresson
  • I think it would be awesome if they built a fisheye zoom like Canon. it would also be awesome if they built a macro like Canons MP-E 65MM..... Wide tilt shift would rock as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.