[Towert7]

And why, in the name of all that is good and holy, do Ken Rockwell wars only break out in the Nikon thread and not the canon thread?

Hm, that alone is enough to warrant canon over nikon. Distance myself from all these crazed fanatics.

 

[Poohblah]

because 95% of what ken rockwell talks about is nikon gear

 

[bigshot]

That Canon 5% is pretty sizeable! not to mention the info on the Canon lenses

See ya
Steve

 

[J.D.N]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Focus isn't a problem with fisheyes. They have a tremendous depth of field. A lot of them are fixed focus anyway. Resale value isn't a problem either. Nikon fisheyes usually sell for almost as much used as new. The problem with a fisheye is the distortion... The reason pros use fisheyes is mostly to get a 180 degree view for processing into a Quicktime VR panorama. They can be used for "arty" shots like you say, but the distortion is a pretty specific effect. The novelty wears off soon. I considered getting a fisheye myself, but instead, I decided to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It has a tremendous field of view, but with extremely straight lines. It's much more versatile than a true fisheye and it's razor sharp. Ken Rockwell just posted a great article on how to shoot with ultra wides. Great tips on how to get the most out of them. Check it out. How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses See ya Steve

Cheers for the info steve, i may well look into getting something close, but not quite a fisheye. At the moment my only lens, the 18-200 is proving a little restrictive in certain applications.

I have read the KR review on the 10.5 FE and will be sure to give the one above a read when ive got some time.

Cheers

 

[Arainach]

A fisheye is a rather special purpose lens and not something I'd get unless I had a large pile of other lenses and was looking to waste money.

What do you find yourself lacking with the 18-200? If you want a good portrait lens consider the 85mm f/1.8 (or the f/1.4 if you can afford it - it's worth the price but it's not cheap). If you're looking to get up close and personal, a good ultrawide like the Tokina 11-16, Tokina 12-24, or Sigma 10-20 could fill the gap nicely. If you're looking for more of an action sports setup, an 80-200 f/2.8 or 70-200VR would do it. It all depends on your needs.

As for me, I've now got a Tokina 12-24 f/4 on the way. Next on my list of priorities is probably an f/2.8 tele or a macro; the 18-70 AF-S is still holding up great as a "normal" zoom, so I've found no need to really replace it.

 

[Killswitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.D.N /img/forum/go_quote.gif i may well look into getting something close, but not quite a fisheye. Cheers

The Nikon 12-24mm lens is pretty amazing, having tried my uncle's on a D2X and a Fujifilm S5-Pro. The only problem is that it is DX only and due to the smaller sensor size the lens only provides a 18-36mm 35mm equivalent. The image quality however is very very good.

Also the price might be a bit much.

 

[bigshot]

The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does. See ya Steve

Though, if you have the money to splurge on FX you will probably opt to get the real deal with the ultra wide 14-24 or the wide 17-35mm from Nikon.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does. See ya Steve

True, but it's hard to find right now and when it is found there have been big reports of consistency problems at sites like Nikonians.

 

[bigshot]

Just looked at the Nikonians review. I think they got two lenses from the same box that had been dropped from a great height. They said the lenses they got came from the same source and they both rattled and had loose lens covers on arrival. That sounds like the problem wasn't with the lens, but rather with the shipping. I got mine at Adorama and it is razor sharp and doesn't rattle at all. The auto focus is extremely snappy.

There is a flickr set of images taken with the Tokina 11-16. That will give you a better idea of how the lens performs than a bunch of test strips on a table. I looked at the Nikonian sample images and they made no sense at all.

Here's a shot I took wide open at night. A little bit of CA in the harsh contrast zone and some graininess from the high ISO, but plenty sharp and contrasty enough for me!

See ya
Steve

 

[Poohblah]

another option is tokina's 12-24mm f/4 which is much cheaper than nikon's 12-24. but if you need that extra stop, than the 11-16 is your lens.

also you could go for a 14mm f/2.8 lens, of course with this option you lose zoom and the ability to use filters.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's a shot I took wide open at night.

I like the girl that's covering her face. Classic.

 

[bigshot]

That's the problem with an ultra wide! It looks like I'm a mile away from them, but I was actually about 15 feet from the window.

See ya
Steve

 

[dj_mocok]

That's not a problem but more like the whole reason why I want that lens altogether. I am tired of not getting so many things I want to get walking around with an 85mm

 

[lan]

I'd like to give a shout out to the 50mm f/1.8D. My favorite little lens of the moment. It was awesome shooting photos of my friend's kid.