WA and UWA for FX questions

Tabazan

Hello to all,

I work with D3s and D4 and use the Nikon 14-24 F2.8 wich don't convince me (somewhat "skating" AF, not as wide as needed). Need to work it out maybe a little more but, well, I'n not so happy with it.

My questions :

I've seen some pics of the 16mm f2.6 D wich "seems" wider than those of the 14-24mm at 14 ... er ... is it possible ?

What is it worth in term of sharpness vs the 14-24mm at 14 ??

What are you using as pro grade diagonal fishey on your FX ?

Thanks !

sevencrossing

I use the 16 mm f 2.8 fish eye on a D800
it is180 degrees across the diagonal
my other super wide is the 16 -35 which at 16mm is not as wide as the fish eye
both need stopping down to f 8 to get the edges sharp
hope this helps

Msmoto

Sorry, I cannot help myself..I love this fisheye. (D4)



This is the 10.5mm f/2.8, modified by removing the built in lens hood...very carefully I might add.
I am from the time when the early 8mm f/2.8 fisheye came out in the 1970's. So, I like the round edges..like a 1950's television.

The 10.5 is a very sharp lens, and here is the link to the 3000 px size

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8410315546/sizes/o/in/set-72157632584664847/

Tabazan

@ Msmoto

Yeah, I love that too ... I've got the Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye wich is fine. Psyche records sleeves, coooool :-) . Sigma is quite good at that (the 8-16mm diagonal was a great lens too ... on DX)

But on the diagonal dept, no solution. Did you test the 16mm D ??

Tabazan

I use the 16 mm f 2.8 fish eye on a D800
it is180 degrees across the diagonal
my other super wide is the 16 -35 which at 16mm is not as wide as the fish eye
both need stopping down to f 8 to get the edges sharp
hope this helps

You point my question.

If yes, why a 16mm prime diagonal is (or look) wider than the 14-24 ??

Msmoto

@ Tabazan

I had the 10.5mm and I like the way it brings the rounded edges into the frame. I think the 16mm will look about like the 10.5mm when one crops for DX if using the 10.5mm. I just could not see purchasing the 16mm fisheye, as the horizontal coverage is only 150°. My next widest is the 16-35mm f/4 VR, giving about 89° horizontal. I also have the 24mm f/3.5 PC, which when shifted gives a very wide angle in one off axis direction. I am guessing it is around 120-130° or 60-65 off axis. And, the question re: why a 16° focal length is wider than a 14°...I would guess this has to do with the lens design and as all of these are retro focus lenses, this is my best guess.

TaoTeJared

@Tabazan -

A Fisheye lens is very different than a Ultra wide angle due to its severe distortion. You have the widest wide angle available.

PB_PM

Not true. The Sigma 12-24mm is FX, and is wider than the 14-24.

TaoTeJared

Forgot about that one - actually owned one once - so bad I almost just tossed it. Ended up re-selling on ebay for "parts". Maybe they have a newer model out since mine 5 years ago.

PB_PM

There is a newer model, released in the last two-three years, with newer optics, not sure what it is like though.