I bought myself a new telephoto but was wondering if anyone had any insight as to what would be a better investment, like from experience. The fisheye has the crazy view but is there a lens that can damn near reach as wide as the fisheye without the distortion?

The Tokina 11-16 is a great lens. Id pick a good wide angle over a fisheye, you'll probably find yourself using it far more often than the fisheye. The fisheye "look" is interesting, but can get very old very fast. Nikon makes a 10.5 fisheye, and so that 11-16 gets pretty close.


This works too: http://petapixel.c...n-on-a-nikon-d800/

Unless you plan on doing lots of skateboarding photos don't buy a fisheye.

Posted by Soldat Unless you plan on doing lots of skateboarding photos don't buy a fisheye.

+1

Get a wide angle that fits your budget.

I bought a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 lens for my Canon. The best decision I ever made, it rarely if ever leaves my camera when I'm out exploring and worth every penny you spend on it. Sigma do a cheaper f4.5-5.6 10-20mm but the build quality isn't as great, just depends on the budget and what sort of camera you have - the Sigma 10-20mm isn't compatible with full frames.

If you were to get a fisheye, the Samyang 8mm is the one you want. But as others have said a fisheye lens can get very boring very quickly.

You can Fuck around with De-fishing fisheye lens. But it sounds like it takes some time to do.

Posted by mookster Sigma do a cheaper f4.5-5.6 10-20mm but the build quality isn't as great,

I have this one, what do you mean the build quality isn't as great? Like its more plastic, or hanky ?


edit: and like you said, this one rarely comes off my camera, I use it for everything. In a way I'm glad I went this route instead of a fisheye, which I was seriously considering at the time.

Posted by turtl This works too: http://petapixel.c...n-on-a-nikon-d800/

Sorry to be off topic but holy shit, that might be the most expensive useless piece of crap I've ever seen :')

Who would ever want something that bulky on his camera? And as far as I could see half of the image is vignetting (or is it a crop lens and did he put it on a full frame camera or something?). Man I'd rather waste $160.000 on beer and hookers than on that lens.

Posted by sirpsychosexy Sorry to be off topic but holy shit, that might be the most expensive useless piece of crap I've ever seen :') Who would ever want something that bulky on his camera? And as far as I could see half of the image is vignetting (or is it a crop lens and did he put it on a full frame camera or something?). Man I'd rather waste $160.000 on beer and hookers than on that lens.

There is no such thing as wasting money on beer bro!

Alright I think I have my answer, thanks for the info guys.

Posted by RescueMe1060 I have this one, what do you mean the build quality isn't as great? Like its more plastic, or hanky ?

One of my mates has the f4.5-5.6 and out of interest I wanted to see what made people say the quality wasn't as good too - it just doesn't feel as sturdy as the f3.5 for whatever reason that may be.

Mind you my f3.5 faceplanted a stone floor from a fully extended tripod and survived with what at the time I thought was just a cracked lens hood and small hairline crack in the threading on the front ring, however over the next year or so the focusing motor gradually got worse and worse so I had to send it off for repairs in July this year after using it for over a year with the damage. They are built tough but not that tough!

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8. Amazing lens. I don't like fisheye really and the Nikon's distortion is very low and easily correctable.

Posted by sirpsychosexy Sorry to be off topic but holy shit, that might be the most expensive useless piece of crap I've ever seen :') Who would ever want something that bulky on his camera? And as far as I could see half of the image is vignetting (or is it a crop lens and did he put it on a full frame camera or something?). Man I'd rather waste $160.000 on beer and hookers than on that lens.

Im sure it was never really for consumer use, im sure it had some value to the scientific community though. Just like Nikon built specialty cameras for NASA, im sure this had a similar purpose.