Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Ultra-wide lens for full frame

Expand Messages
  • Robert Lesac
    Hi, I ve been getting ready to upgrade my kit (to D610 probably) and I ve noticed that there is barely anything in the ultra wide range for full frame. About
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 29, 2014
      Hi,

      I've been getting ready to upgrade my kit (to D610 probably) and I've
      noticed that there is barely anything in the ultra wide range for full
      frame.

      About the widest I could find is Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II.
      Going by the reviews it's not all that great at the corners.

      Currently I use a D90 with a Tamron AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD.
      The difference would be small, barely 12 deg VFOV in portrait mode.

      So that leaves me with fish-eye lens which are IIRC a pain to use (non
      fixed NPP).
      That said I might as well pick up a Samyang 8mm now and shave it later
      when I pick up a full frame.


      Any other recommendations or tips?



      --

      Pano/VR/Gigapixel photography: http://robertlesac.com
    • Keith Martin
      On 29 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Robert Lesac robert@robertlesac.com ... With a well-set head (or a lens-specific rotator) it s not the problem you re probably
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 29, 2014
        On 29 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Robert Lesac robert@...
        [PanoToolsNG] wrote:

        > Currently I use a D90 with a Tamron AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD.
        > The difference would be small, barely 12 deg VFOV in portrait mode.
        >
        > So that leaves me with fish-eye lens which are IIRC a pain to use (non
        > fixed NPP).

        With a well-set head (or a lens-specific rotator) it's not the problem
        you're probably thinking. The majority of my stuff is shot with a Nikkor
        10.5mm shaved fisheye, and I have very little trouble at all.

        Or, if you have the budget, there's a lens that's been on my wish-list
        for a long time: the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 ultra wide zoom. It's awesomely
        sharp – as sharp as the best primes in this area. Ken Rockwell says
        that this lens "is sharper wide-open at 14mm in the far corners than my
        fixed 14mm f/2.8 is stopped down at f/5.6," and "devoid of any coma or
        softness at every aperture" from centre to corners. The bad news is that
        you'd be lucky to find it for under $1500/£900 second-hand. :-(

        k
      • Robert Lesac
        ... I currently use a NN5 + nadir adapter and is perfectly fine for my current setup. Not quite template stitching good, but good enough. ... Ah the budget.
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 29, 2014
          On 29.7.2014. 23:11, 'Keith Martin' keith@... [PanoToolsNG] wrote:
          > On 29 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Robert Lesac robert@...
          > [PanoToolsNG] wrote:
          >
          > > Currently I use a D90 with a Tamron AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD.
          > > The difference would be small, barely 12 deg VFOV in portrait mode.
          > >
          > > So that leaves me with fish-eye lens which are IIRC a pain to use (non
          > > fixed NPP).
          >
          > With a well-set head (or a lens-specific rotator) it's not the problem
          > you're probably thinking. The majority of my stuff is shot with a Nikkor
          > 10.5mm shaved fisheye, and I have very little trouble at all.

          I currently use a NN5 + nadir adapter and is perfectly fine for my
          current setup. Not quite template stitching good, but good enough.

          > Or, if you have the budget, there's a lens that's been on my wish-list
          > for a long time: the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 ultra wide zoom. It's awesomely
          > sharp – as sharp as the best primes in this area. Ken Rockwell says
          > that this lens "is sharper wide-open at 14mm in the far corners than my
          > fixed 14mm f/2.8 is stopped down at f/5.6," and "devoid of any coma or
          > softness at every aperture" from centre to corners. The bad news is that
          > you'd be lucky to find it for under $1500/£900 second-hand. :-(

          Ah the budget. Investing that much in a lens that won't make my workflow
          any faster doesn't appeal much to me.
          Faster pano acquisition is currently my main concern. Seems like a
          shaved fish-eye is the way to go.

          WRT paying premium for sharpness for panorama shooting is a bit of a
          wash. Even with my very bad copy of Tamron, I can just stop down to F11,
          apply a mask for the softer edges and shoot with enough overlap. On a
          stitched pano no one can tell the difference. The beauty of synthetic
          photography :)



          >
          > k
          >
          >


          --

          Pano/VR/Gigapixel photography: http://robertlesac.com
        • Scott Highton
          I have used fixed focal length Nikkor 14mm, 15mm (original QTVR lens), and 18mm lenses for many years for panorama work. They re all fine lenses (except the
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 30, 2014
            I have used fixed focal length Nikkor 14mm, 15mm (original QTVR lens), and 18mm lenses for many years for panorama work. They're all fine lenses (except the 15mm, which is more prone to flare than the others). Most of the time, they sit on the shelf today, however.

            I do 90-95 percent of my panoramic work today with the Nikkor 16mm full-frame fisheye on a full frame Nikon D800. It's a great combination for spherical panorama shooting -- good resolution (about 20,000 x 10,000 pixels for equirectangular result) with a need for only 8 shots (6 around plus zenith and nadir). Also, it's very sharp (I normally shoot at about f/11). No problems with entrance pupil alignment. I usually prefocus at hyperfocal distance, and the EP difference is negligible between most panorama sequences.

            I also use a shaved Nikkor 10.5mm (full frame fisheye for the DX format, but works on FX cameras) on the D800 for pole panoramas (6 shots around, no zenith or nadir needed), but only yield about 12,000 x 6,000 pixel panoramas. It's workable, but not preferred if I can use the 16mm instead. But the results are surprisingly good.

            Don't dismiss fisheyes outright. They're a great option for today's panorama photographer, and offer a very good set of tradeoffs.




            Scott Highton
            Author, Virtual Reality Photography
            Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
          • mrjimbo2
            I ll second that vote on the 16mm .. jimbo ... From: Scott Highton scott@highton.com [PanoToolsNG] To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 30,
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 30, 2014
              I'll second that vote on the 16mm ..
               
              jimbo
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:14 AM
              Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Ultra-wide lens for full frame

               

              I have used fixed focal length Nikkor 14mm, 15mm (original QTVR lens), and 18mm lenses for many years for panorama work. They're all fine lenses (except the 15mm, which is more prone to flare than the others). Most of the time, they sit on the shelf today, however.

              I do 90-95 percent of my panoramic work today with the Nikkor 16mm full-frame fisheye on a full frame Nikon D800. It's a great combination for spherical panorama shooting -- good resolution (about 20,000 x 10,000 pixels for equirectangular result) with a need for only 8 shots (6 around plus zenith and nadir). Also, it's very sharp (I normally shoot at about f/11). No problems with entrance pupil alignment. I usually prefocus at hyperfocal distance, and the EP difference is negligible between most panorama sequences.

              I also use a shaved Nikkor 10.5mm (full frame fisheye for the DX format, but works on FX cameras) on the D800 for pole panoramas (6 shots around, no zenith or nadir needed), but only yield about 12,000 x 6,000 pixel panoramas. It's workable, but not preferred if I can use the 16mm instead. But the results are surprisingly good.

              Don't dismiss fisheyes outright. They're a great option for today's panorama photographer, and offer a very good set of tradeoffs.

              Scott Highton
              Author, Virtual Reality Photography
              Web: http://www.vrphotography.com

              No virus found in this message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7948 - Release Date: 07/30/14

            • Keith Martin
              I ll third it. :) I use my shaved 10.5mm most of the time because in crazy locations it s so much faster shooting 3+N (tripod) or 4 (pole) than the 6+N+Z the
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 31, 2014
                I'll third it. :)

                I use my shaved 10.5mm most of the time because in crazy locations it's
                so much faster shooting 3+N (tripod) or 4 (pole) than the 6+N+Z the 16mm
                needs. But the Nikkor 16mm fisheye is a sweet lens and works *very* well
                for panos, for me.

                k


                On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:47, mrjimbo2' mrjimbo2@... [PanoToolsNG]
                wrote:

                > I'll second that vote on the 16mm ..
                >
                > jimbo
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Scott Highton scott@... [PanoToolsNG]
                > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:14 AM
                > Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Ultra-wide lens for full frame
                >
                >
                >
                > I have used fixed focal length Nikkor 14mm, 15mm (original QTVR lens),
                > and 18mm lenses for many years for panorama work. They're all fine
                > lenses (except the 15mm, which is more prone to flare than the
                > others). Most of the time, they sit on the shelf today, however.
                >
                > I do 90-95 percent of my panoramic work today with the Nikkor 16mm
                > full-frame fisheye on a full frame Nikon D800. It's a great
                > combination for spherical panorama shooting -- good resolution (about
                > 20,000 x 10,000 pixels for equirectangular result) with a need for
                > only 8 shots (6 around plus zenith and nadir). Also, it's very sharp
                > (I normally shoot at about f/11). No problems with entrance pupil
                > alignment. I usually prefocus at hyperfocal distance, and the EP
                > difference is negligible between most panorama sequences.
                >
                > I also use a shaved Nikkor 10.5mm (full frame fisheye for the DX
                > format, but works on FX cameras) on the D800 for pole panoramas (6
                > shots around, no zenith or nadir needed), but only yield about 12,000
                > x 6,000 pixel panoramas. It's workable, but not preferred if I can use
                > the 16mm instead. But the results are surprisingly good.
                >
                > Don't dismiss fisheyes outright. They're a great option for today's
                > panorama photographer, and offer a very good set of tradeoffs.
                >
                > Scott Highton
                > Author, Virtual Reality Photography
                > Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > No virus found in this message.
                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7948 - Release Date:
                > 07/30/14
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.