which would you buy

[jann1033]

tokina 12-24 or 10-17 fisheye...love the fish eye but also need a wide angle since the only other wide i have is 17 or 28, both are rated very good( 10mm slightly better) and the price diff. isn't that great either but wondering if i will regret the "novelty" of the fisheye verse the usability of the normal lens. not sure where the fisheye would stop being so noticeable(mm) as i remember groucho's photos of the 10-17 at 17 were pretty "normal" looking

 

[Groucho]

I think it depends on how wide you want to go... I believe that the 10-17mm at 17mm has a wider field of view than the 12-24mm at 12mm. (I don't remember the specifics, but I remember reading that more than once.)

If you're go no interest in fish-eye photos, the 12-24mm is the way to go, I would think... even at 17mm, you'll still get some distortion, though you can often hide it depending on how you compose the shot.

But if you have even some interest in fish-eye, I'd have to lean towards the fish-eye... the shots can be a lot of fun and even with distortion, can be pretty handy in many tight circumstances.

FWIW, I already had the 16mm fisheye and bought the 10-17mm to get the full fish-eye effect, and while I'd like a nice rectilinear superwide, the 12-24mm is far from the top of my list at this point.

I think I look at it like, a superwide is just giving me something wider than a kit 16-55m lens but basically the same image, while the fisheye gives you something unique that you just can't get with any other type of lens. I'll take unique over gaining another 4mm at the wide end.

Ultimately, though... "life's full of tough choices, innit?"

 

[Furgus]

Have you looked at the Sigma 10-20? I bought it last year, and I must say, I rarely take that lens off anymore. Of course, I mostly take lansdcapes, but it is a good lens for taking some interesting photos of my pets. I think the focus length is like 4 inches, so the cats can see themselves in the lens, and that makes them stick around.

 

[Gdad]

All depends on what you shoot and what you want. I had a Sigma 10-20mm which- as Groucho mentioned gives you basicly the same shot just a little bit more of it- Did not really do much for me so I sold it and got a 10.5mm fisheye and am having a lot of fun with it- I love the effect. Here are a few from last weekend.

 

[jann1033]

i looked at the sigma but am trying to get some lower light lenses

i really like the fisheye effect but this is a fluke i have the cash in my hot hands and don't know when I'll be able to get another wider angle so in a perfect world could get both but in my imperfect world am hoping for a combination ...i did read one review that said above 10 the fish isn't as pronounced and can be used as a wide angle but not sure how i would go about that....ie what makes the fisheye more or less pronounced, composition wise...buy dig has it right now for a great price so if it still has it after i make a deposit tomorrow I'll probably get the 10-17 since it's under $20 more than the 12-24

 

[Groucho]

The fish-eye is less pronounced because you don't see the edges. Think of it this way - a fisheye lens designed for a film camera has less of an effect on a DSLR because of the crop factor - the most distorted areas are not captured by the sensor.

It's exactly the same with the fisheye zoom - at 10mm, you're getting the full 180' fisheye range (maybe fractionally less due to 1.6 crop rather than 1.5), but as you zoom out, you're essentially zooming into the image and the heavily rounded edges are lost, giving you only mild distortion at the edges.

For example... here's a shot (with unflattering lighting, unfortunately) from my 16mm Zenitar fisheye, which will be fairly similar to what you'd get with the 10-17mm when zoomed in. It'd take a close look to have any idea that this came off a fisheye lens. (This is the Saratoga Springs Resort at WDW.)

A Zenitar is a low-cost option to get some fisheye, but of course you don't have the option of getting the full effect on an APS sensor. On the upside, it's quite a nice lens and fairly fast - unfortunately, the 10-17mm is a little slow. But the ability to zoom really adds a lot of flexibility.

BTW, you might be interested to read Herb Keppler's comments on the lens. The original Pentax 17-28mm zoom was one of his all-time favorite lenses, here is him talking about the joys of a fisheye zoom, and here is him talking about the Pentax-Tokina alliance and specifically the 10-17mm lens, including a link to their review of the Pentax version.

I do really wish that it had a distance scale like the Zenitar does, but oh well... that's hardly a gripe limited to the 10-17mm!

 

[jann1033]

i ordered the 10-17, buydig had it for 485 so that was a good deal imo....i'm sure i'll like it, and even if i just use it for wide angle at 17, it's wider than the 28 i use more now. plus i'll have the fish eye for "fun"

 

[DVC Jen]

Janet I am kinda debating both too. I will probably go with a basic wide angle rather than a fisheye for now. I see myself using it more - not sure I would want the fisheye look on all of my wide angle shots. But someday - I DO want that fisheye lens as well - it does look like lots of fun.

 

[jann1033]

the thing that sealed the deal for me was the 10-17 also has a 1:2.5 macro...i am hoping (and from the photos i looked at) the fisheye isn't as pronounced after 10 so it's more like just a wide angle...i actually got some shots i liked with my new 28-135( after the first day i was to tired to lug more than that and my 50mm ) but kept wishing i had a little bit wider angle...so i don't think i'll miss the super wide 10 but hope it is suitable for just more "normal" wide after 15 or so. if not i guess i'll be adding a wide prime to my wish list

 

[Groucho]

Congrats, I'm sure that you'll have a blast with it. I'm looking forward to seeing your first shots!