NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on May 31, 2017, 08:02:08
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7860163392/nikon-adds-to-fast-prime-series-with-af-s-nikkor-28mm-f1-4e-ed
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6789294946/full-frame-nikon-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-fisheye-zoom-now-available
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6953738760/nikon-announces-budget-friendly-af-p-10-20mm-f4-5-5-6g-vr-lens-for-dx-bodies
-
Here in Japan, Nikon also announced new protection filters using the optical glasses produced by Hikari Glasses which has provided Nikon with optical glass materials.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1062644.html
They employ the fluorine coating. I would have liked to have the coating on all of the newer lenses, though...
-
I thought - or hoped - to be finished getting more lenses :D aargh.
-
Preempting
Let's see how many people are gonna give Nikon a whinge as to everything. From being defunct as a company to not producing enough new products.
Waiting for any picsnapper to query as to why Nikon is launching a 28/1.4 when a 28/1.8 is available and whether it is sharp enough or not.
And of course as to why the 8-15mm is f3.4-4.5 and not f2.8.
-
Some DX optimised primes is needed ;)
-
It is going to be interesting to see how much performance they got out of the 10-20mm, apparently mechanically at the level of the 18-55mm VR kit lens... The interesting data are very low weight (230g) and good close focus at 22 cm. It could for some be an alternative for a weight saving situation like backpacking/camping trip combined with a 5000 series body when one absolutely want to chip off as much weight as possible. (just a pity it does not go to 24mm, as the weight saving might end up in the need to carry one extra lens... ;) ). It is also nice that the regular consumer got such an alternative - that is if performance is OK.
-
the new fisheye is GORGEOUS :o :o :o
-
Some DX optimised primes is needed ;)
Yes that is curious. Apart from the Nikon 10.5 fisheye, and the Canon 24 STM, I can't think of any compact wide "DX" DSLR primes from the two main players, or any third party manufacturer. Plenty of wide zooms, including some fast limited range zooms by Sigma and Tokina, but no primes. Yet that is what people have been asking for, for years. You'd think there would be a ready market and at least one of the third party makers would have stepped in by now. :o :o
The new fisheye looks cool though, and pretty compact for a circular fisheye. Can't help feeling that it will be used either at 8mm (circular fisheye) or 15mm (full frame fisheye) and not much between, so more like two lenses in one rather than a zoom.
Better get on and load them to by database... :)
-
There is also the old DX 35mm 1.8 G,,, ;) Similar size and design as a 50mm 1.8 G,,,
I don't think there is much to 'save' in a DX fixed focal length 'optimized' design approach compared to 'just' designing it as FX, the gearbox and SWM motor, mount, contact bloc and electronics, mirror box design - all optimized for FX - so I think we will see very very few DX primes, it simply doesn't make any sense to do it,,, IMHO
-
The new 10-20 would be suitable for Vlog using D5600.
-
I also wonder if Nikon changed the projection method of the fisheye. Its focal length is 15mm when it works as diagonal fisheye on FX, unlike the traditional 16mm ones. Sigma 15mm is based on a different projection method, if I remember correctly.
-
For sure the projection will be constant throughout the zoom range!
I would have preferred a fixed focal lenght 8mm,,, or a 6mm that gives a huge amount of possibilities for creativity!
-
There is also the old DX 35mm 1.8 G,,, ;) Similar size and design as a 50mm 1.8 G,,,
I don't think there is much to 'save' in a DX fixed focal length 'optimized' design approach compared to 'just' designing it as FX, the gearbox and SWM motor, mount, contact bloc and electronics, mirror box design - all optimized for FX - so I think we will see very very few DX primes, it simply doesn't make any sense to do it,,, IMHO
Yes, but the DX 35/1.8 is not a wide prime... :o
I think the Canon 24 STM shows that a compact wide prime is possible :)
Just loaded the new lenses to my database! 8)
-
They employ the fluorine coating. I would have liked to have the coating on all of the newer lenses, though...
Roger Cicala of lensrentals.com has said fluorine coatings seem to be more prone to scratches. It allows you to remove dirt easily but may be a bit fragile.
The 8-15 and 28/1.4 include it according to the NikonUSA web pages.
I guess it is left out of the 10-20mm for cost reasons. The 200-500/5.6 is one notable recent lens which also excludes it.
-
I thought - or hoped - to be finished getting more lenses :D aargh.
I look forward to seeing your comments on the new fisheye zoom. :)
-
I also wonder if Nikon changed the projection method of the fisheye. Its focal length is 15mm when it works as diagonal fisheye on FX, unlike the traditional 16mm ones. Sigma 15mm is based on a different projection method, if I remember correctly.
The 8/2.8 fisheye uses equidistant (linear scaled) projection projection, so the image height, measured from the center of the image is proportional to the angle of view measured from the center.
A full frame fisheye with equidistant projection and 180° angle of view from corner to corner should have focal length of image diagonal/pi.
For FX it should be 43.3/3.14 = 13.8mm (14mm)
The Nikon 16/2.8 fisheye has slightly longer focal length so the image magnification in the center of the image is slightly greater, but with 180° angle of view the corners are more compressed. So, compared to the equidistant projection it has greater barrel distortion. The older 16/3.5 has only 170° angle of view so the corner distortion is slightly less and closer to equidistant projection. The Canon and Sigma 15mm fisheyes should also be closer to the equidistant projection. I prefer this projection, the Nikon 16/2.8 has a bit too high distortion towards the edges of the image, so hopefully the new fisheye zoom is an improvement.
-
wondering if there is an IR hotspot with this new and very interesting lens... my old 8mm fisheye does not.. which was a nice surprise on my D800E conversion.
will have to try out as soon as my local dealer gets a sample
-
Hoods for the new lenses:
HB-80 AF-S 8-15 fisheye
HB-81 AF-P 10-20 DX VR
HB-83 AF-S 28/1.4
HB-82 is not allocated yet, so there must be another lens coming soon...
I assume the hood for the fisheye is for using on DX cameras?
-
Yes that is curious. Apart from the Nikon 10.5 fisheye, and the Canon 24 STM, I can't think of any compact wide "DX" DSLR primes from the two main players, or any third party manufacturer. Plenty of wide zooms, including some fast limited range zooms by Sigma and Tokina, but no primes. Yet that is what people have been asking for, for years. You'd think there would be a ready market and at least one of the third party makers would have stepped in by now.
There will be a good reason. Tokina, eg, previously made a 17mm f/3.5 FX and they make DX wide zooms, so they have the know-how to make a wide DX prime. The obvious reason they don't do it is they don't think it will make money.
Because DX and FX have the same registration distance a (say) 15mm for DX has to be as retrofocus as an FX 15mm, which creates the same degree of asymmetry and therefore distortion and coma for both formats, and the same need for correcting elements - or, as in the case of the new 10-20, small maximum apertures. The DX lenses need less covering power, so the front element does not need to be as large as for an FX lens of the same actual focal length, but there is little or no DX benefit at equivalent focal lengths for wide lenses: the Nikon DX 12-24/4 is exactly the same price ($1000) and size (77mm filters) as the 16-35/4 FX, and the 10-24 DX variable aperture is the same size as and more expensive than the 18-35 variable aperture FX.
DX wide primes would have to compete not only with the DX wide zooms, but also with the option of going FX. Most FX lenses in the 14-15mm range are buttock-clenchingly expensive, and it is not obvious that 14 or 15mm DX primes would be price competitive with either alternative. The 14-24/2.8 FX is, in round numbers, twice the price of the 12-24/4 DX - it is also a stop faster, but if we take that price difference as the DX benefit at the same actual focal length a DX version of the Nikon 14/2.8 might cost $900, and a DX version of the Zeiss 15/2.8 might cost $1000. That is not competitive with a zoom for a casual user, and for a serious wide-angle user it is hard to see it as competitive with buying an FX body and a 20/1.8. (The Irix lenses may break the mould, if it turns out that the cost is low only because they have reduced their profit margin).
Many people - including me - say they want wide DX primes, but when Thom Hogan asked his readers to rank possible lenses according to how likely they would be to buy them the picture changed: zooms were the first choice (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/desirable-dx-lenses-accordi.html).
-
That fish is very very desirable, one fish that can do it all.
Had my eye on the Canon 8-15/4 a while now but never pulled the trigger, it's good to have another option now from Nikon :)
-
I have asked Nikon Nordic to provide me with sample lenses for review.
-
I have asked Nikon Nordic to provide me with sample lenses for review.
Please test out the coma performance of the new 28mm f/1.4E :)
Much appreciated!
-
I have asked Nikon Nordic to provide me with sample lenses for review.
Would be very interested in the IR performance. Circular fishes make for quite nice IR landscapes.
-
I have asked Nikon Nordic to provide me with sample lenses for review.
Good, and yes, I'm suspect of the quality of the 10-20 zoom if DPR has the price correct at $309. That's quite inexpensive for such a lens, IMO. We'll see what your take on it is.
-
Some DX optimised primes is needed ;)
With the same flange focal distance of 46.50mm wide primes for DX won't be small, fast and give the high quality image DX needs. They could be large, fast and expensive and then they would not sell.
Long primes aren't needed. There are plenty of FX longer primes that work fine on DX. A 300mm lens on DX is a longer lens relative to the format and though some cringe at calling this reach that's what I call it. A 300mm lens has more reach on an FX camera than a 5x7 or 8x10. A 300mm lens isn't a long lens to me on those formats. On 8x10 it will give the angle of view of a 150mm lens on 4x5".
I personally feel it's unwize to stock up on DX lenses. FX is the better format for wide and normal lenses. DX has advantage with macro and long telephotos due to the longer focal lengths relative to the format. Stocking up on DX primes would make moving to or adding FX more expensive.
Nikon isn't going to make ultra wide angle primes for DX unless their market research shows they will sell and make a profit. For those who want them buy an FX camera and buy a the ultra wides you want. A person doesn't have to choose between DX and FX unless they just can't afford to own both.
Dave Hartman
-
I want a 15mm or 16mm prime, fish or non fish, but full frame.
Now they offer a Zoom that puts circular and fill-frame-fish in one package.
For me the 15mm part is enough. If that part shows to be worth 1500 Euros I will get one, otherwise I look into a used 3.5/16 Ai-S
-
the new fisheye is GORGEOUS :o :o :o
Yes, but big and not so light compared to my 16/3.5 AI.
I was hoping for a 16/3.5 E AFS that was at least as good as the '70s vintage Nikkor . . . .
-
My Nikon contact assured me he would do his utmost to get samples of these new lenses for reviewing. I think they will be very exciting lenses and look forward to have them available.
-
Looking forward to your review, Bjørn!!!
-
The fisheye, created a "Wow," but it's out off my price range & possibly will be another wide that will not focus correctly on my D7100. The 10-20, right off the bat scared me because of the low price. Whoops.... The D5200 focuses wides fine. (Scale/DOF, manual focus on my Tokie 12-24.)
The big however.......(I'm a bit of a fanatic on 180+ degree circular images.)
(I will patiently wait for Mr. R's take on the new lenses.)
-
The problem with 10-20 (and all the other AF-P lenses) is that D5600 and 3400 are the only cameras that can turn the VR off, which can be troublesome if you mount the camera on a tripod. I'm not sure if there would be firmware updates for otherwise compatible bodies...
-
Some samples with the fisheye zoom found here
https://www.joshuacripps.com/2017/05/nikon-nikkor-8-15-fisheye-sample-photos/ (https://www.joshuacripps.com/2017/05/nikon-nikkor-8-15-fisheye-sample-photos/)
-
Here we supposed learn about "massive fisheye perspective" .... Can photographic writing be any worse ?? Designating 1:3 as "unique macro" fades in comparison.
-
The 8/2.8 fisheye uses equidistant (linear scaled) projection projection, so the image height, measured from the center of the image is proportional to the angle of view measured from the center.
A full frame fisheye with equidistant projection and 180° angle of view from corner to corner should have focal length of image diagonal/pi.
For FX it should be 43.3/3.14 = 13.8mm (14mm)
The Nikon 16/2.8 fisheye has slightly longer focal length so the image magnification in the center of the image is slightly greater, but with 180° angle of view the corners are more compressed. So, compared to the equidistant projection it has greater barrel distortion. The older 16/3.5 has only 170° angle of view so the corner distortion is slightly less and closer to equidistant projection. The Canon and Sigma 15mm fisheyes should also be closer to the equidistant projection. I prefer this projection, the Nikon 16/2.8 has a bit too high distortion towards the edges of the image, so hopefully the new fisheye zoom is an improvement.
Sigma clearly states that they use the equisolid angle projection method for thier circular fisheyes for FX and DX, and 10mm diagonal fisheye for DX. There is no mention of the projection method for the FX 15mm, but it should be safe to assume that its projection method is the same as that for the others.
The rectlinear fisheye Nikkors use equidistant projectcon method.
To my eyes, the exaggeration of the central area is stronger on the Nikkor primes. But the new fisheye zoom at 15mm, the central area seems to be less exaggerated.
Samyang uses the stereographic projection method for all of their diagonal fisheyes. The image looks more natural, and the central area looks least exaggerated. This mehod isn't suitable for the images of extreme perspectives, but I prefer it for using a fisheye as an ultrawide lens. I loved Samyang 7.5mm fisheye for m4/3.
-
The image circle of Sigma 4.5mm fisheye for APS-C format is 12.5mm which is a bit too small for the 2:3 still frame. But it can yield the uncut circular image when the APS-C cameras are used to shoot 9:16 videos (even the smaller Canon).
Considering that Erik had to make a big effort to reduce the image circle to get the circular image for video, there could be video shooters who had wished the zoom to yield a bit smaller imgage circle at the widest end...
-
I also wonder if Nikon changed the projection method of the fisheye. Its focal length is 15mm when it works as diagonal fisheye on FX, unlike the traditional 16mm ones. Sigma 15mm is based on a different projection method, if I remember correctly.
I noticed that the new zoom fisheye employs the equisolid angle projection method instead of Nikon's conventional equidistance projection method. (Apparently the projection method is mentioned only in Nikon's Japanese website.)
Now my question about the shortened focal length is solved. :)
-
If not already linked to here, a nice review of the zoom fisheye:
http://blogg.astrofotografen.se/2017/06/nikon-fisheye-8-15mm-f35-45e-ed-review_15.html
-
Just got the lens. :D
First @ 8mm F8 ISO64
Second @ 15mm F5.6 ISO64
-
Apart from the nice images, Chris.
What you say? Dump all the other fishes?
-
Thanks Jakov.
Yes I already sold the Sigma 8mm and Nikon 10.5
Next is the chipped 16/2.8 AI-S
-
That says a lot Chris. Enjoy it
-
Chris, these are beautiful fishing images to make many to want ones...
-
Okay, I've never owned, or even shot, a fisheye, but I think I understand them, somewhat. With that in mind, I have a question. If the question is not applicable, please let me know, and I'll go back to knowing absolutely nothing about a fisheye, much less somewhat.
In order not to include one's feet in the image they need to extend the camera further away from their body. I won't get into the part where that would make good technique harder to accomplish, at lest for me. But, with the camera extended, the eye is no longer able to see through the viewfinder, so one would have to go to Live View. If one did that then wouldn't they need to block the viewfinder to keep stray light entering it from altering the exposure? If so, how did folks manage before camera had the Live View function?
Yes, I know that the use of a tripod would allow one to setup the image using the VF, then step back and pull the trigger, but it looks to me like we are seeing a lot of hand held fisheye work here. If I sound confused, well, I am. :-\
-
Okay, I've never owned, or even shot, a fisheye, but I think I understand them, somewhat. With that in mind, I have a question. If the question is not applicable, please let me know, and I'll go back to knowing absolutely nothing about a fisheye, much less somewhat.
In order not to include one's feet in the image they need to extend the camera further away from their body. I won't get into the part where that would make good technique harder to accomplish, at lest for me. But, with the camera extended, the eye is no longer able to see through the viewfinder, so one would have to go to Live View. If one did that then wouldn't they need to block the viewfinder to keep stray light entering it from altering the exposure? If so, how did folks manage before camera had the Live View function?
Yes, I know that the use of a tripod would allow one to setup the image using the VF, then step back and pull the trigger, but it looks to me like we are seeing a lot of hand held fisheye work here. If I sound confused, well, I am. :-\
Any lens that has that large a FOV you have to be careful with hands, feet, tripod feet, unintended other objects in the frame.
The only time I put my circular or full frame fisheye on a tripod is to take images of the night sky.
-
Any lens that has that large a FOV you have to be careful with hands, feet, tripod feet, unintended other objects in the frame.
The only time I put my circular or full frame fisheye on a tripod is to take images of the night sky.
Thanks, I'm aware that a large FOV lens demands attention to keep unwanted things out of an image, but that doesn't answer my questions.
-
Okay, I've never owned, or even shot, a fisheye, but I think I understand them, somewhat. With that in mind, I have a question. If the question is not applicable, please let me know, and I'll go back to knowing absolutely nothing about a fisheye, much less somewhat.
In order not to include one's feet in the image they need to extend the camera further away from their body. I won't get into the part where that would make good technique harder to accomplish, at lest for me. But, with the camera extended, the eye is no longer able to see through the viewfinder, so one would have to go to Live View. If one did that then wouldn't they need to block the viewfinder to keep stray light entering it from altering the exposure? If so, how did folks manage before camera had the Live View function?
Yes, I know that the use of a tripod would allow one to setup the image using the VF, then step back and pull the trigger, but it looks to me like we are seeing a lot of hand held fisheye work here. If I sound confused, well, I am. :-\
You mean like this? :D
Beside the unsharpness.
-
Yes, that is an example of what I'm talking about.
-
A sort of boom arm (don't know what to call the device) with a counter weight would allow one to use a tripod with a fisheye. I don't think this will be come popular for a variety of reasons. Anyway it's out there and might be useful in some special situations. I'm pretty sure I have the stuff but I've never done it.
Dave Hartman
The widest I've shot is 15/5.6 AI and 16/2.8 AIS. Even here one has to take care not to photography one's feet.
-
With the Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 one has to take care not to get his own butt in the frame.
lol
-
With the Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 one has to take care not to get his own butt in the frame.
lol
;D ;D ;D
I have several examples of my own feet in the frame too if you like ;D
I have no answer to your question other than I´m being extra cautious. Extending the arms to shot and framing per practice or per instinct or perhaps is on the way. My best bet, other than that, is the angle in which you point it. Others may have more and better advice.
-
I've only used a diagonal fisheye, and it was enough to remember to lean my upper body forward, even in the portrait orientation.
That said, my camera was a m4/3 one. The angle of view of APS-C and full frame formats are wider on the longer side, so a bit of extra care would be necessary.
-
The foremost problem with shooting the 15/5.6 AI is all the people waving back at you when all you intended was to keep the sun from gracing the bulbous front element with your hand.
The problem of photographing one's feet is easily solved if the photographer would simply remember to wear nice shoes.
-
Feel free to contribute the first serial number to my site ... :)
-
Feel free to contribute the first serial number to my site ... :)
Done...
-
Chris, congrats on your purchase of zoom fisheye which hasn't hit the shelf in Japan yet. :o :o :o
-
Congratulations Chris ;)
Here is how to shoot with the 6mm
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3011.msg44104.html#msg44104 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3011.msg44104.html#msg44104)
Same principle worked on a monopod, images of that in the Scotland thread,,,
-
Nobody wants to address my question as to whether or not folks are blocking the VF when stretching out for these fish eye images. :-\
-
Congratulations Chris ;)
Here is how to shoot with the 6mm
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3011.msg44104.html#msg44104 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3011.msg44104.html#msg44104)
Same principle worked on a monopod, images of that in the Scotland thread,,,
Yes, the bow tie is essential. :D
-
Carl, it could be that nobody understands what you are asking?
At least, I don't :)
-
Nobody wants to address my question as to whether or not folks are blocking the VF when stretching out for these fish eye images. :-\
Normal precautions, not unique to any particular lens type:
Block it you are relying on the camera meter to control exposure, unless it's dark outside. If you aren't on auto exposure, it doesn't matter whether you block it or not, except if there is a possibility that extremely bright light(direct sun, bright spotlight, laser, etc) could enter the finder and find its way into the image path between the lens and sensor. On most occasions outside during the day, it isn't necessary to close the finder.
-
Nobody wants to address my question as to whether or not folks are blocking the VF when stretching out for these fish eye images. :-\
No, only for long exposures do I block the viewfinder with the built-in shutter on my D800.
J
-
Normal precautions, not unique to any particular lens type:
Block it you are relying on the camera meter to control exposure, unless it's dark outside. If you aren't on auto exposure, it doesn't matter whether you block it or not, except if there is a possibility that extremely bright light(direct sun, bright spotlight, laser, etc) could enter the finder and find its way into the image path between the lens and sensor. On most occasions outside during the day, it isn't necessary to close the finder.
Now we are getting somewhere.
I know isn't specific to a lens type, but in order not to include feet, etc, with a fisheye, it will have to be extended out from the shooters body, which leaves the VF not protected by the shooters head blocking extraneous light. So, let it go, as in ignore it, or block the VF from interfering with the exposure. You understood my question, Keith, thanks.
Yes, auto would compensate, if it was used.
-
No, only for long exposures do I block the viewfinder with the built-in shutter on my D800.
J
Okay, only for long exposures, thanks.
-
As a rule I block the viewfinder if using Aperture Preferred or any auto exposure mode if the camera isn't to my eye. If I set the camera down where the sun shines on the viewfinder eyepiece I also close the blind (D800 or D300s).
Dave
In days of old CdS light meters could go blind, temporarally or permanently if exposed to direct sunlight for too long. They also had a memory of bright light to deal with. Maybe I too carful from habit? Maybe not?
-
Done...
Thanks - already loaded to my site :)
-
Sigma clearly states that they use the equisolid angle projection method for their circular fisheyes for FX and DX, and 10mm diagonal fisheye for DX. There is no mention of the projection method for the FX 15mm, but it should be safe to assume that its projection method is the same as that for the others.
The rectlinear fisheye Nikkors use equidistant projection method.
To my eyes, the exaggeration of the central area is stronger on the Nikkor primes. But the new fisheye zoom at 15mm, the central area seems to be less exaggerated.
The early Nikon 8/8, 7.5/5.6 and 8/2.8 fisheyes use equidistant projection, or very close to it. From memory, the tables that Nikon published show slightly higher distortion towards the edges but it is minor.
I don't remember seeing anything which states the projection used for the 16/3.5 and 16/2.8 lenses. Since the 16/3.5 had only 170° field of view compared to 180° for the 16/2.8, the projections must be different. A full frame equidistant fisheye with 180° field of view from corner to corner should have a focal length close to 14mm. The Nikon 16mm fisheyes exaggerate the central portion more with greater compression and higher distortion towards the edges, so the projection might be closer to equisolid. I'm not sure if any effort was made to conform to any specific projection though, maybe they were designed to whatever was easiest! The new fisheye zoom at 15mm probably has a projection closer to equidistant.
-
I noticed that the new zoom fisheye employs the equisolid angle projection method instead of Nikon's conventional equidistance projection method. (Apparently the projection method is mentioned only in Nikon's Japanese website.)
Now my question about the shortened focal length is solved. :)
Roland, I've found the answer. :)
-
Nobody wants to address my question as to whether or not folks are blocking the VF when stretching out for these fish eye images. :-\
I use to block the viewfinder when not looking through it.
But when hand holding a fisheye and don't want my feet in the picture, I do look through the viewfinder. Using live view and stretched arms does not give me the control I want.
-
I use to block the viewfinder when not looking through it.
But when hand holding a fisheye and don't want my feet in the picture, I do look through the viewfinder. Using live view and stretched arms does not give me the control I want.
Very understandable, thanks for your response. Asle.
-
Just curious, what is the hood for the 8-15mm fisheye for? Obviously can't be used on FX if a circular image is required :o
-
Just curious, what is the hood for the 8-15mm fisheye for? Obviously can't be used on FX if a circular image is required :o
The dedicated hood and cap are designed to be removed altogether. I guess that they are to be removed altogether when you use the lens as FX circular fisheye.