Super wide, super duper wide, fisheye or macro?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RevToTheRedline, Feb 14, 2008.

  1. RevToTheRedline macrumors 6502a

    RevToTheRedline

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #1
    My camera just told me it wants a new lens (no it didn't really I'm not that crazy)

    What I have left from my generous tax return is enough to buy a Tokina 12-24mm F/4 super wide... a Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 super duper wide ,a Tokina 10-17mm F/3.5-4.5 fisheye zoom... or the new AF-S 60mm Nikon F/2.8 Macro

    Out of those 3 I think the fisheye would be the least to come out of my bag, but maybe not, I don't have one so I don't know.
     
  2. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #2
    I'd get the macro. In fact, that's the next thing for my kit.

    But, if you're more into, say, architectural photography than closeups, than the 12-24 or 10-20. If the Tokina maintains the f/4 throughout the range, then that's probably the preferable of the two.
     
  3. RevToTheRedline thread starter macrumors 6502a

    RevToTheRedline

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #3
    Right now I don't really have an itch to do macro shots, like insects and flowers and such, but it looks fun. And would broaden my photography horizon but I dunno if I'd use it a whole lot.

    The Tokina 12-24 is the one I was leaning most towards, as it's an almost identical optical match of the 2x more expensive Nikon 12-24mm F/4.. But the 2mm wider focal range of the Sigma is nice too.
     
  4. iBallz macrumors 6502

    iBallz

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    So. Utah
    #4
    Well, I have the 10-20, and got some kinda cool shots today at a home show house. Maybe there is one with better glass? But some of the shots would of been nice if I had about 2mm more width.

    I would hate to of had any less width than I had, and it focuses fast.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    The Sigma is 2 mm wider, which is a heck of a lot. However, I think the Tokina may be a better lens than the Sigma. ;)

    The fisheye is a nice lens to own if you already have one of the wide-angle lenses and want a fun lens. I wouldn't buy one as your primary wide lens, even if you can flatten out the image later in software. If you're going to use it and flatten out the image anyway, you may as well get a better performing wide-angle lens like the Sigma or Tokina.
     
  6. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #6
    I have the Tokina 12-24 and like it a lot - I don't regret the purchase one bit.

    However I always feel obligated to point out that people seem to love their wide-angle lens, no matter which one they buy. So think about what you want, but don't stress too much - you'll enjoy it regardless, and it's likely you'll think you made the right choice no matter what. :D
     
  7. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    I am thinking of getting a fisheye lens myself, but I was wondering about your comment.
    Why would you want to flatten the image if he made the choice to get the fisheye? Does it give some other effect?
    Thanks
     
  8. RevToTheRedline thread starter macrumors 6502a

    RevToTheRedline

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #8
    Flattening a fisheye in Photoshop makes basically an ultra crazy super mega wide angle, without having the fisheye effect, a lot of people do it with 8mm fisheyes and 10mm fisheyes. But I don't see the point unless you want to save money by using a fisheye as a standard super wide. For me it's just extra post processing I don't care about.
     
  9. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #9
    Macro work is done slowly with a camera on a tripod. You move the camera an 1/8th inch left, then re-focus and then maybe move a light. So you can get by with an inexpensive lens that lacks AF and metering. I use a 1960's vintage 55mm f/3.5 AI'd lens. I think I paid about $80 for it. A one time the 55mm f/3.5 was the sharpest lens in the world. It still resolves more detail than a DSLR sensor can record.

    Spend the money on the wide lens.
     
  10. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #10
    I really like my Sigma 10-20mm, especially with Bibble to straighten it out at 10mm, but really it's a good lens. My other favorite wide is the Nikkor 20-35mm AF-D, which is finding itself on my camera more and more these days. Last time I looked KEH had one or two, but they're not all that common on hte used market.

    The 20-25 is much better at 24mm than the 24mm AF-D prime.
     
  11. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #11
    No, but since it captures something like 180º (or at least 160º horizontally, I think), it's going to give you an incredibly wide view. Flatten it out, and you get a normal looking photo that's ultra-wide. If you buy a fisheye and wish to use it as a normal wide-angle lens, you'd need to do some processing of each photo, and the image quality will not be as good as it is with a dedicated wideangle lens. If it was, everyone would buy a fisheye and flatten out the image.

    Also, with fisheyes like the 10.5 mm Nikon fisheye, you can't zoom at all, which is quite inconvenient. There's a big difference between 12 mm and 24 mm, and I can't imagine using my Tokina if it was stuck at 12 mm and not zoom-able. If it was stuck at 12 mm, you'd have to get pretty close to things if you want to shoot an object and fill the frame.
     
  12. CalfCanuck macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    #12
    I'd help limit your choices by thinking about what you like to shoot. If you had to choose only one prime lens that would be on your camera for the rest of your life, what would it be? Then apply that logic to your lens choice (unless you already have a bag full of hot lenses and just want to fill in the gaps, in which case you probably wouldn't be posting).

    For me, I'd pick a 24 mm (for full frame shots). I shoot with all sorts of gear including the Canon 100-400 mm IS L (though my 100 mm macro gets used the least and often is left at home when I'm trying to travel light), but my preferred style is to get in close to my subjects or do more panorama type shots. I do use an extreme wide angle (my 17 mm on FF or the extreme of my 10-22 mm for my 40D), but there is a fair amount of distortion. Of course one works with it and tries to make it part of the image, but a 24 mm FF equivalent is my personal sweet spot.
     
  13. macro macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    #13
    Don't know what lenses you have but the most useful lenses to keep handy, for 35mm or DSLR, are a 50mm f 1.4 or something around a 100mm or 105mm short telephoto. You will find, if you get a fast lens (50mm f1.4 or 100 mm+ f 2.8) that you will never be sorry.

    When I go to a shoot I always take the 50mm. Doesn't matter what I think I'll use. The 50mm always comes out. It's not a sexy lens, like a fisheye or a 600mm tele, but it makes things happen. I always remember that the best lens is a 50mm. 50mm telephoto or wide angle; same lens. The difference is that the photographer moves backwards and forwards to gain the telephoto to wide angle effect with the 50.

    Remember, the practicality of a lens is how much you rely on its use and more often than not the light is not going to cooperate. It's all about capturing the light.
     
  14. Whorehay macrumors 6502a

    Whorehay

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    #14
    UWA! Fisheye is even more specialized than UWA. You'll probably find more uses for an UWA lens.
     
  15. hooly macrumors regular

    hooly

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #15

Share This Page