Wide Angle

I am looking for a wide angle lense for my D70. I saw the article on the home page and recocmends the Sigma 15mm. It goes for $469. But for $579 I could get the Nikon 10.5mm lense. Was wondering if this would be the way to go?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

For my first WA lens I'd go with a Nikon 12-24. It's more versatile than a 10.5.

Joe

I think Joe is probably right. I have had the 12-24 for some time; and bought a 10.5 a few months ago after seeing some of the awesome results Alex Mustard has produced.

You can indeed produce amazing images with the 10.5. But it is a lot trickier to use than a 12-24 because of the sharp bending of straight lines. You need to find compositions where seriously bent lines do not impact too much on the picture. A classic 10.5 picture is a diver hanging alongside a wall looking at a piece of coral or a fish. The results can be spectacular. Good for wrecks too.

The 12-24 is generally more forgiving and, as Joe says, more versatile. But the 10.5 sure is worth considering and I plan to work with it a lot more in future.

Go mad: buy both

Tim is right. the 10.5 is awesome. I have both the 10.5 ans the 12-24 and I love them both. The 10.5 is more of a specialty lens, but it can produce awesome results if used the right way.

Joe

So by what you guys are saying I should not waste my $$$ on a Sigma 15mm or Nikon 14 or 16mm??

Go with 12-24 then down the road get the 10.5mm.

I am hoping to have this all together by Labor Day weekend, we are headed to Key Largo and do some wreck dives, which is what I do here in New Jersey.

Hmmm, well to be honest I have never used a 14mm, 15mm or 16mm prime lens, Sigma or otherwise. Many years ago I used Sigma lenses on my Olympus film cameras and they were good.

The difference between 12mm (of the 12-24) and 14mm or 16mm may not sound very much, but it does offer that bit more - and having zoom rather then a fixed focal length is so much more flexible. The difference between the 10.5mm and a 14mm or 16mm has to be highly noticeable!

If you can, I would suggest that you take a look at each of them at you local Nikon/Sigma store. As for which to go for: tough call. The 12-24 is certainly a lot more expensive - but it is flexible, forgiving and great topside too. I doubt you would ever regret buying it. The 10.5mm, as Joe and I have both said earlier, can produce amazing results but is a bit more specialised and takes practice. If you were long-term planning I would be tempted to suggest get a 12-24 now and think about a 10.5 for later.

Another factor you might want to bear in mind though from the cost point of view is that both the 10.5 and 12-24 need the largest dome port (they would both use the same one) - an expensive beast. I'm not entirely sure about the 14mm or 15mm, but with a 16mm you might get away with a slightly smaller and less expensive dome - but do check!

Hope this helps!

Of course it depends on budget and on what housing system you are using -- if you are using Ikelite, you can get the Ike compact dome, the 10.5, and a used Nikon 16 for less than the 12-24 would cost with the larger dome required for nice crisp shots. The compact dome is perfectly sharp (by my test shots) with both of these lenses and its small size is an advantage in traveling and diving. Here, you give up the flexibility of a zoom and accept the barrel distortion of fisheyes, but (IMO) you get superior optics and fast 2.8 lenses that don't have some of the sharpness issues of a zoom behind a port (and both FE's take filters at the back). This is what I have done, and I am perfectly happy so far .... though I do fully expect to pick up the 12-24 eventually.

(I find less need for a zoom underwater -- you can often wait or fin to frame; we are less restricted in position underwater than on land)

If I didn't have to concentrate on getting ready for returning students, I'd go ahead and post some Cocos-Malpelo shots with the 10.5 and 16 -- but it'll be post Labor Day, I'm afraid.

Good luck!

Chris

I'll add my choices in order of preference..having all these lenses..

10.5 (just cant take a bad shot with this lens)

15 FE Sigma.. (great for CFWA)

12-24 Nikon... (you will probably end up at 12 end or 24 end...)

16mm Nikon .. ( I see no advantage over Sigma 15mm)

I just could not get good results with my 12-24 compared to the 10.5 and 15mm FE. I think you could probably buy the 10.5 and 15 FE for the price of the 12-24...

If you are shooting big reefs and wrecks go for 10.5

If you want a wide angle but want to be able to shoot within 5.9 inches go with the 15 FE.

I have pictures with all these lenses posted on my website below.

M.

If you want a wide angle but want to be able to shoot within 5.5 inches go with the 15 FE.

According the specs the Sigma's minimum focus distance is 5.9" and Nikon is 5.5''

Why is the Sigma 15 more suitable to CFWA?

Hey Arnon -

I use both the 10.5 and 15mm for CFWA... the 10.5 is true 180 degree fisheye for D70 whereas Sigma is not.. Objects appear much smaller with the 10.5 than Sigma lens. Sigma lens is FE but not for our cropped sensors. I think it is acting more like 22mm WA. There was another post on this board about the differences which is more technically correct than my feable explanation. Once you shoot with them you will see the difference immediately.

M.

min. focus on Sigma 15 FE is 5.9 inches (corrrected)

min. focus on Nikon 10.5 is 5.5 inches....

min. focus on Nikon 16 mm is 10.2 inches

So by what you guys are saying I should not waste my $$$ on a Sigma 15mm or Nikon 14 or 16mm??

Go with 12-24 then down the road get the 10.5mm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wrt. the Nikkor 14mm, I would rule this lens out at this stage for the following reasons:

- It's coverage is roughly equivalent to a 21mm in 35mm format

- It's expensive (1500$ ?)

- You need a very good port to get edge to edge quality

It's a great lens but not as versatile as a Fisheye and not as wide as the 12-24, so I'd get those first, unless money is really burning a hole in your pocket B)

As for the fisheyes, if you go for the 15mm or 16mm then you will have a cropped fisheye image on the D70 - roughly equivalent to the image the 14mm lens will produce on a 35mm camera (about 120 degrees, but other members have calculated this more accurately so may correct me). This will still display the image curvature of a fisheye, but less pronounced.

the 10.5 will give you true 180 degree coverage.

One of the challenges you will face with a fisheye is getting the lighting right. I don't know where you dive or what other kit you have but you will certainly need 2 strobes to light a fisheye image. If you tend to dive in more turbid waters, then you really will need to have a well developed lighting technique to get results with this lens.

So where does that leave us? personally Full frame fisheyes are my favourite lenses for wide but I'm inclined to agree with others that you are better off with the 12-24 until you've really got to grips with wide angle photography particularly with regards to lighting

My opinion for what it's worth.....

Cheers

Steve

you could always get the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 10.5

Ahh the choices....

I'm new to this underwater thing but I do have a little experience with some of these lenses. I primarily shoot sharks and shark/reef scenes. For me its a matter of what do you intend on shooting and how close do you think you can get? I started w/ a d70 and a 12-24 nikon and bought a 10.5 FE because everybody raved about both lenses. My first trip w/ this setup was to Guadalupe w/ white sharks. I started w/ the 12-24 and tried the 10.5 on the last day......well I have only put the 12-24 on the camera one more time in the last year.....for me, the quality of the image just is not there in the 12-24. I dont think that I have honestly given the lens a chance but the 10.5 is so much sharper and faster if you can get close enough. The 10.5 forces you to get closer to your subject which puts less water between you and the subject and creates a better image. I have never shot a picture with my 12-24 that I am truely happy with. I just tried a 14mm rectilinear lens and I am seriously considering selling my 12-24 to finance this lens. It was tack sharp and was very close to the coverage of a 20mm on a film camera. It really depends on what you shoot and distance from the subject. I would rather not take a bad shot, from too far away, that I am going to delete anyway and just enjoy watching the animal instead.

Okay, repeating myself a bit here, but -- the Nikon 16mm FE is excellent, has very little distortion on a 1.5 crop camera, and is commonly available used but mint for under US$500 (that's how I got mine, and there are almost always several on eBay). It can be used in the same port as the 10.5. It is small and light. It is fast. It is sharp. For shipwrecks, piers, architecture, etc., the 14mm would definitely be better but I think the 16mm is great UW.

Hee hee, bet you are glad you asked now eh, MPC?

ahh, but wouldn't the world be a boring place if everyone agreed B)

So I think, between us, we've successfully narrowed the choices down to Nikon 10.5, 14, 16 and 12-24, and Sigma 15 and 12-24