Fisheye-Nikkor 8-15 mm f/3.5-4.5

[Bjørn Rørslett]

As more NG members gain experience with this new 'fishy' zoom Nikkor lens, it  might  benefit all of us sharing those experiences here in this thread.

I got my lens earlier today. Will post later.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

First impressions: this is a fairly compactly built lens. It extends ever so slightly during zooming and reaches the minimum length around the 10mm focal setting. The maximum is at 15 mm. We're just talking about an additional 4-5 mm in overall length, though.

The rather shallow hood is useful when the lens is operated around the long end to prevent impacts to the bulbous front and should be removed otherwise, unless one shoots the lens on a DX format system in which case the hood can stay down to some 10-11 mm focal length. It also acts as a mounting foundation for the lens cap. For DX shooters there is a special mark showing the approx. 11 mm setting that provides "full frame" without any dark corners.

Either FX or DX users will enjoy the very sharp images this fisheye zoom is capable of delivering. As expected from an ED lens, colours are crisply and vividly rendered. Like any modern lens the image contrast is outstanding. Fluorine coating on the front (hopefully) helps keep dust removal simple and efficient.

No sun today. so no idea about the propensity for flare and ghosts.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A quick sequence 8-10-12-14-15 mm  to show the field of coverage as the lens zooms over its designated range  For FX use I'd guess one either sets the lens to 8 or to 15 mm, whilst on the DX format the intermediate focal range can be utilised better.

Getting your feet included is easy

All photos shot at f/5.6 with my Df.

[bobfriedman]

from what i've seen.. the old circular fish seems sharper further toward the edges... that is, less of that bluish/blur band around the circumference. while it may be a consequence of the fish design, the old one is quite narrow compared to this.

IR??

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 8-15 apparently does IR quite well, but only cursory testing conducted so far.

[Roland Vink]

The amount of vignetting at 14mm is very small, if the sides of the image were to be cropped for a squarer format, I imagine shooting at 13mm or 14mm would be quite possible on FX. Maybe even 14.5mm would be possible without cropping, if a very slightly wider angle of view is desired.

[atpaula]

from what i've seen.. the old circular fish seems sharper further toward the edges... that is, less of that bluish/blur band around the circumference. while it may be a consequence of the fish design, the old one is quite narrow compared to this.

IR??

This lens will require a round crop to remove this unpleasant blue halo. Yes, bigger than that of the older 8mm f/2.8.

[David H. Hartman]

Is there something wrong with me; I like the blue fringe?

Dave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The "blue fringe" is the hallmark of a true fisheye design so nothing wrong with it per se.

One is of course free to make a circular mask to remove the fringe during post processing, if deemed necessary.

Vignetting will, by the way, depend on focused distance. The image circle expands slightly towards infinity focus. Thus, one can get by with the lens at 9.5 mm setting for remote subjects with a DX camera, instead of the ~11mm "safe DX" mark on the lens barrel.

As to focusing, the close focus is 0.16m thus only leaves about 3 cm free space in front of the glass; with the hood on there is just 2 cm of working distance. Don't fall into the trap of mixing up "close focus" with "macro" -- as the focal length is short, magnification isn't that large even at the near limit unless the lens is operated at 15 mm focal length in which case one gets around 1:3. Scaring away insects is easy

[bobfriedman]

The "blue fringe" is the hallmark of a true fisheye design so nothing wrong with it per se.

but it appears to be that the "halo" is greater = thicker on the new lens.... "i am at a loss for the correct terminology"..

[bobfriedman]

The 8-15 apparently does IR quite well, but only cursory testing conducted so far.

this is a good sign.. if you find that the lens is truly IR friendly i may purchase one..

albeit, having to circularly crop more than the old lens

[Ilkka Nissilä]

What is the situation with defishing of these zoom fisheyes, is it possible to do at the longest setting? This kind of functionality is provided in software for the 10.5mm. However, I guess the zoom feature would complicate things.

I'm just thinking I might use this lens in some contexts where it would be useful to provide the standard fisheye rendering and something that approximates an image made by a rectilinear wide angle without actually making separate shots with two lenses.

[David H. Hartman]

I used to defish photos from a 16/2.8 AIS with PS CS2. The cameras were DX, D2H and D300s. There is a penalty paid but sure it's less than for FX. Once I got a D800 I had real wide angle lenses at my disposal.

I'd carry an AF-S 20/1.8G ED unless the format is DX. The 20/1.8 is mostly bulk rather than weight. Maybe a defished 15mm is a little wider but doubt it's worth the loss of image quality.

I'd want to k ow the angle of view was really wider with the defished image. I don't have any direct comparisons and my brain is too hot to wrap around the angles.

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

Defishing can be done against a grid as I did with PS and DX photos. It can also be done by eye. I think I used the spherize tool.

Dave

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I'd carry an AF-S 20/1.8G ED unless the format is DX. The 20/1.8 is mostly bulk rather than weight. Maybe a defished 15mm is a little wider but doubt it's worth the loss of image quality.

What I want to do is use a remote camera on the back of the church to capture a few overall view shots of a ceremony and the fisheye would allow me to do that in a small church without making the people sitting at the outer parts of the back rows too large. I don't want to emphasize the back row corners since the people probably chose to be there not to be the center of attention.  I think a fisheye would allow me to reduce the emphasis of the people in the corners of the back rows and put more attention on the couple at the altar while still showing the whole space or as much of it as possible in a single image. But this would only be used if the venue is small and packed with people basically.

I would be firing the back side camera with two WR-R10's (one on the camera I'm using the other on the remote) and I would be focused on capturing shots from the altar side. This way I would avoid having to physically move to the audience side. By staying in one area I would then hopefully be less noticeable.Yes, I understand that a fisheye is not how the guests would see the event  I would then retain the option of defishing some shots if the out of the camera look of the images is too much. 

My alternative choice would not necessarily be a superwide angle lens but one that shows the center corridor and altar.