| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon fisheyes
Erik Markov, Photographer
 |
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 10:05 PM on 07.02.10 |
->> this is probably a stupid question, I'll acknowledge that, but I'm trying to figure out the difference between the nikon 14mm which they call a wide angle and the 16mm which is considered a fisheye. From the example pics I've seen it appears the 14mm has correction to take the distortion out where as the 16mm looks as tho it has spherical distortion. Are there any other diff's?
Reason I ask is because I'm considering getting a really wide/fisheye to go beyond my 20mm prime. I had (yet another) opportunity tonite where a fisheye would really come in handy. Granted these times only happen 3-4x a year, but when they do there is NEVER advanced noticed which might give me time to rent one. And it's chances where they only happen once every 5 years, just can't pass them up. This one literally was notice at 2pm for something at 6pm tonite which doesn't even leave me time to drive to Indy to rent one, not that there are any places to get that there anyway.
Anyone with info would be great. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:33 PM on 07.02.10 |
->> The Nikon 14mm has 114 degree angle of view, while the 16mm has a 180 degree angle of view.
The 14-24/2.8 Nikon is one of my favorite lenses. Crazy wide and very flexible. I would go for that over the 14mm prime. The cost difference isn't that much.
The non-fisheye is much more useful for general purpose photography, but both have their place (I have both).
Dave |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:05 PM on 07.03.10 |
->> Erik,
Totally different design...it's not just that the 14mm "takes out distortion," it's more that the 16mm was designed with "extra distortion" built in.
If you find that you rarely use a really wide angle, I'd maybe go with a fisheye. They can be corrected to yield a relatively undistorted view with software, although it will cost you some corner sharpness. And if you really need close to 180-degree angle of view (note that this is on the diagonal), only a fisheye can do this.
I used to use the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom for just this purpose, and still bring it along when I'm traveling light. But there are other good options out there for ultrawides, like the Tokina 11-16/f2.8 or the Sigma 8-16.
Here's my take on the 10-17:
http://sportsphotoguy.com/gear/t1017wa.html
Chuck |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 07.04.10 |
| ->> You could also consider the 10.5. It only shoots in DX mode but with the crop factor it's 16.5 mm and a lot more affordable. Sweet lens |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 12:16 AM on 07.05.10 |
->> I find that i only use the fisheye (16mm) when I'm shooting large crowds, up close, or for some sort of special effect. I like it, but i dont use it very often.
I normally shoot with either a fixed 14 or a 20. I would prefer the 14-24, alas money does not allow for it.
Example : http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2010/06/usa-vs-ghana/#31 |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|