wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: fisheye lenses : Nikkor 10.5 mm vs Sigma 15
pedro_silva58 2005-Mar-31 21:00:00
rodolpho,
you're right, of course, about the difference in "full-frame-ness"
between the two. assuming they have similar geometries, the 10.5 vs
15mm should have that effect. still...
i find the sigma 8mm not too bad (considering) near the center, but
much worse in the periphery. cropping a 15mm might give a nice
quality image all around (and require more shots: there's no free lunch!)
also, is a "rectilinear" 14mm or zoom necessarily better for panos
than a 15mm fish? why? if its distortion is moustache-like (quite
common, i hear), wouldn't that be harder to correct than a good fish?
if you have the time to explain, i'd appreciate it!
cheers,
pedro
--- In #removed#, Rodolpho Pajuaba <#removed#> wrote:
> pedro_silva58 escreveu:
>
> >hi all!
> >i've followed this thread with interest, hoping someone would compare
> >the nikon and the sigma 15mm (yes, not the 8). they are comparable
> >(both full frame, etc), and i'm considering getting one of them. the
> >sigma is cheaper, as expected, but is it worse? anyone has experience
> >with these, and would be willing to share? links ok too!
> >tia and cheers,
> >pedro
> >
> >
>
> Unfortunately, they are not comparable. The 10,5mm is full frame for
the
> cropped DSLRs, and the 15mm is full frame for SLRs/non-cropped DSLRs,
> like EOS 1Ds, 1DsMKII and Kodak 14pro. Using a 15mm on a cropped DSLR
> will decrease the FOV, being probably better to use a rectilinear lens,
> like 12~24mm, 14mm, 15~30mm , because you?ll have to make multi-row to
> achieve a spherical pano.
> Regards,
> Rodolpho Pajuaba