Fisheye or Super-Wide?

[RevToTheRedline]

I'm in a pickle, where I can't decide which type of low focal range lens I want to get next.

I'm seeing a lot of amazing pictures done with Fisheyes, and a lot done with Super-Wides. I have 2 in mind right now, the Tokina 12-24mm F/4 which is the most highly recommended super-wide out there, for those that can't sport the Nikon offerings price. $500 vs $1100.

And for fisheyes I've been looking at the Tokina 10-17mm F3.5-4.5... There is only one problem with the 10-17mm Tokina, that is excessive CA, but is correctable if shooting in raw, and edited. I do have an understanding though that a fisheye is a very limited use lens, and probably isn't worth the money if I won't use it much.

Right now the only lenses I have are the ones in my sig. I primarily use the 35mm F/2D because it's my standard (as anyone Nikon user should know the crop factor on a Nikon DSLR other than the new full frame, is 1.5x because of the APS-C sensor so 35mm x 1.5 FOV crop = 52mm effective focal length) So that would make the Tokina 12-24mm really 18-36, which is still super-wide.

I've been thinking about also selling the 18-135 for a 18-200mm VR for a better all arounder. So many lenses, so little money.

What do you all think?

 

[Clix Pix]

The fisheye IS a pretty specialized lens, but when handled carefully can produce some great super-wide views, too, or can be "de-fished" in some editing software (Nikon Capture NX, for instance).

I have both the Nikon 12-24mm wide angle and the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, and have used the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle as well. The fisheye is a fun lens, but it's not the one I pull out when I'm striving for a wide angle view of something. For general, all-around wide angle shooting you should stick with a rectilinear wide angle lens rather than getting a fisheye. The rectilinear lens will give you better perspective and straighter lines than the fisheye. If you think you'll be wanting to shoot a lot of images with the "fishy" point of view, then go with the fisheye.

 

[compuwar]

I'm in a pickle, where I can't decide which type of low focal range lens I want to get next.

I'm a big fan of the Sigma 10-20mm, a fisheye gets old if done too much. The 10-20 is very low-distortion, and Bibble cleans what there is up well.

 

[RevToTheRedline]

In all reviews I've read they have said if you can afford the Nikkor 12-24 go for it, otherwise get the Tokina.

I've used a 10-20 Sigma, I don't like the build quality. Sigma is a iffy company, sometimes you get a winner sometimes you don't

 

[compuwar]

I've used a 10-20 Sigma, I don't like the build quality. Sigma is a iffy company, sometimes you get a winner sometimes you don't

Mine's always in my bag, and I haven't had any ruggedness issues at all, and given the extra field of view and the fact that it's half the price of the Nikkor so even if it were only to last half as long, I'd probably still go with it over the Nikkor- but I have all my gear insured, so I'm not that worried about it. My camera and lenses go out in the field all the time, they don't get babied or coddled- but they don't get purposefully abused either. But if you don't like it, then the Nikkor is probably a reasonable choice- you may want to check the Nikonians wide-angle shoot-out if you haven't already.