Interesting...
Can't say that i know a lot of your history Alex, i have only been reading this forum/webpage for about 6-8 months or whenever i came back to the real world which is where i have discovered your name/work. I admire your work, and have been impressed by your knowledge and posts that you have added to Wetpixel over this time period.
HOwever, from what i recall from reading past posts, you were a film shooter, as well as medium format, before (and perhaps still?) going to digital.
This leads to my question.
Did you ever shoot with a Nikonos or Nikon RS? (wide rectilnear 15mm or 20mm)
The fact you say you have never used a wide angle other than a fish eye leads me to believe no...
I am by trade (90+%) a wide angle shooter. I like a fisheye, most familiar with the 16mm on film, but find it to be very limited. I must say that my specialty is the CFWA but still found the 16mm to be limited unless i was on a specific dive looking to find a specific picture. I much prefer the 15mm on Nik V as a general all around lens for most situations.
Today, i have finally put the 12-24mm in the housing (D70) after owning it for 3 or 4 weeks (shooting video so no time for myself) Unfortunately, mantas going off but viz about 20 feet and very green so didn't really experiment with it so don't know its ups and downs.
Would love to hear your thoughts on why you like the 10.5 over the 12-24. Is this something to do with the quality of the lens or? BOth have their places but??? I have seen some great 10.5 shots, especially from Blue Holes in Palau but i would think the 12-24 (18-35 on film) would be a lot more useful.
I can understand a compostion and originality point of view but i really think the "fisheye" view of the lens is limited and was wondering what you prefer for standard wide angle?
Cheers
Mike