Page 1 of 2

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:05 pm
by Thomas
Don't stumble across all the Nikonian abbreviations on this one. Just wanted to make sure you know what I'm talking about!

I had the opportunity today to test this lens against the Sigma 10-20mm 1/4-5.6, because I was searching for the ideal lens to complement my standard 18-200mm VR Nikkor. Well, I think I've found it!
For my struggle with the Sigma lens, read here: http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182

I will update you on my impressions up to March 2nd, then take the lens to New Zealand and report on my findings from that challenge. So, stay tuned...

1. At first let me state that this is a fisheye so almost all lines are reproduced as curves. BUT if you like , you can correct for this with the CaptureNX software. But ONLY if you shoot in RAW-format :!:
2. The lens focuses up to 4cm from the front lens :!: Can you imagine what this can do to the perspective of your picture?
3. It is an AF lens, not a AF-S. That is, the focussing is done by the cam-body, not the lens. Meaning: this lens is not for the Nikon D40!

See a pic of another fisheye-owner that is one of my favourites: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id ... 988&size=o
If anyone else has personal experience with this fisheye, please report here!

How good is CaptureNX at defishing?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:03 pm
by Thomas
Now here's the meat:
You'll find two indoor photos at flickr shot with the fisheye 10.5mm Nikon lens at 1/30s, f4, ISO 1600 (so don't complain about the grain :lol: )
normal:
Image

defished:
Image
There are several things to note:
- contrast is unbelievable: You see the windows totally overblown from the outside light @ (255,255,255) R,G,B , but still there are pixels with (5,5,5) at the front of the loudspeaker.
- not all fisheye-perspectives are radically curved: I found this pic in its normal fishyeyed version not too extreme! And if you shoot outdoors in the wild (no architecture!) the curvature shows up even less.
- correction through CaptureNX (defishing) is great: All the lines straightened out and quite sharp (look at the tiles)

I've included another examples of a "low curved" indoor fisheye-shot here:
as is: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/4070 ... 5444_b.jpg
defished: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/4070 ... 739b_b.jpg
In this case I even find the defished perspective less "natural" than the fisheye-perspective. This clearly comes from the disadvantages of tilting the lens down (or up) from the horizon.

In both cases you cannot really see a loss of sharpness in the defished corners. If you could see the pics in original resolution, you can certainly see some loss in a 100% crop. But only so slightly in these cases.
There are other cases though, where CaptureNX has a lot more stretching to do and that shows in the corners.

To be continued...

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:53 pm
by Phil Lee
Those are really interesting Thomas. It would also be interesting to see what a specialist piece of software such as DXO Optics Pro makes of the fish eye correction.

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:04 pm
by Thomas
I don't have DXO, Phil!
If you have, I can send you the pics and you can make a comparison between CaptureNX and DXO.
In CaptureNX you can only toggle between a straightened normal version as above and a maximum width version that tries to cover almost the same angle vertically than the fisheye, but that shows missing picture information for a rectangular pic like the following:
Image

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:59 pm
by Gordon Laing
Hi Thomas, nice examples!

Are there any tools in Adobe Camera RAW which could help? I suspect Nikon's own Capture NX would do the best job though with one of its own lenses.

So the big question is whether it's a keeper? Has the Sigma gone back and will the Nikkor be coming with you to NZ?

Gordon

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:03 pm
by Phil Lee
tombomba2 wrote:I don't have DXO, Phil!


There is a 21 day trial version of it. Unfortunately it doesn't list the fisheye as a valid lens for the D80. They obviously haven't done any work on that one yet.

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:56 pm
by Thomas
Yep! The Sigma is back (to square one). I can't stand a lens that doesn't deliver consistent results. Sometimes it was sharp, sometimes not. You were never sure what the outcome was :(
The Nikkor will come to NZ :)
I will not try DXO - have enough to do anyway :roll:
I'll keep ye'all posted...

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:59 pm
by Thomas
B.t.w. you can even shoot perfectly normal looking photos with a fisheye as long as you adhere to two rules:
- keep the horizon strictly in the centre of your pic
- don't shoot architecture...

The proof is here!
Image

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:00 am
by zorro
Hi Thomas.

As you probably know I have the 18-135mm kit lens. I bought that lens because I had a holiday in Corsica coming up and due to a lack of funds I needed something that would do it all. Anyway, I only really shoot landscapes and so I was looking at the Sigma 10-20mm. Having read your opinions - and those of others - I think I'll give it a miss.

I'm having a hard time imagining what 15mm (effective) lens actually behaves like, even with these pictures you've supplied. Could you maybe link to a couple of landscapes you've shot with the 10.5mm lens? I'd really appreciate it. Do you think it would serve as an all-around landscape lens? Or do you think it's maybe too wide?

Zorro.

Angular coverage

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:18 am
by Bob Andersson
Hi Tom,

I started another thread asking about fisheye lenses on cropped sensor bodies without realising that you had done a review of the Nikon offering. Can you confirm my suspicion that such lenses don't give the expected 180° diagonal view on such cameras?

If so then I wonder why neither Canon nor Nikon has produced a true fisheye for their cropped sensor bodies.

Bob.

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:15 pm
by Thomas
Oh boy, I nearly missed your entries.
So here it is - a link to all my flickr 10.5mm fisheye shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasruba ... 086869958/
You can also do a search on "nikon fisheye" at flickr to see other people's results.

As to Bob's question: I didn't measure, but when you tilt the cam to diagonal/upright you might easily capture your feet!
See some nice test on it here:
http://www.fotoverkstan.se/fisheyetest/

And some nice photos here: http://www.pbase.com/northqueenslandpho ... e/43490026

You might easily capture your feet!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:07 pm
by Bob Andersson
When you tilt the cam to diagonal/upright you might easily capture your feet!


Hi Tom,

Good feedback. It sounds as though a fisheye's angular cut-off on a cropped sensor isn't nearly so bad as the normal 1.6 FOV multiplier would suggest. I guess that explains why neither Nikon nor Canon have seen fit to produce a dedicated fisheye for the applicable cameras.

Bob.

Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Review

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:12 pm
by Thomas
Hi Bob, but sorry, I didn't get that!
Do you imply that the 10.5mm is not a fisheye?
And what do you mean by "angular cut-off"?

Angular cut-off

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:28 pm
by Bob Andersson
Hi Tom,

As you know, if you strap a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor body it behaves as though it is the equivalent of an 80mm lens (roughly) on a full frame body. Another way of looking at this (sorry, bad pun) is that the field of view or angular coverage of the 50mm lens has been reduced to (roughly) 5/8ths of its full frame capability when used on a cropped frame body.

The Canon fisheye, and I assume the Nikon one is the same, is designed to give a full 180 degree diagonal angular coverage on a full frame sensor. On a cropped sensor the fisheye is obviously not focussing the image onto the sensor over that full 180 degree range because a cropped frame sensor isn't big enough.

The thrust of my question was how much of that angular coverage is lost. Because of the geometry of the barrel distortion it may not be as simple as the 3/8ths indicated above. It seems from your own experience that less than this is lost.

Note, I am not suggesting that the Nikon fisheye doesn't behave like a fisheye on a cropped sensor body. It obviously does because of the barrel distortion. I am suggesting that there really should be dedicated fisheye lenses for cropped sensor bodies if one wants to get full 180 degree coverage.

Bob.

P.S. I've probably made a meal of trying to explain what I meant. Hope I haven't been too opaque.

Sorted

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:16 pm
by Bob Andersson
Thanks to both Gordon and Tom for clearing up my question in this thread.

Nikon wins this round as the Canon EF 15mm f2.8 Fisheye is designed for full frame sensors and so may not provide the expected effect on cropped sensor bodies.

Bob.