Comparison of Nikon 10.5 and Nikon 10-24 Lenses: I'm looking for a good DX wide/fisheye, mainly for landscape and macro experimentation (and just for fun (;-) ). Does anyone have...

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm looking for a good DX wide/fisheye, mainly for landscape and macro experimentation (and just for fun (;-) ). Does anyone have experience with the comparative performance of the Nikon 10.5 prime and the Nikon 10-24 zoom (used at the wide end)?

dadaist

I have the 10.5 and the 12-24 DX lenses. Both are great lenses. They do a fine job for me on a D300 and D7100 cameras. I have no experience with the 10-24 lense. I am certain you will be happy with any of the above!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I owned both the 10.5 and 12-24 as did dadaist and also found them both decent lenses with the 10.5 being my favorite of the two. I have not used the 10-24. I presently own the Rokinon 8mm with the confirm chip and find it fun to play with yet not as good as the OEM brand, just a lot less $$ for what I wanted it for. Best of luck.

IBM

wthomson wrote:

I'm looking for a good DX wide/fisheye, mainly for landscape and macro experimentation (and just for fun (;-) ). Does anyone have experience with the comparative performance of the Nikon 10.5 prime and the Nikon 10-24 zoom (used at the wide end)?

If you want to save a few $$$ get the Sigma , it rates better in testing ,

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

wthomson wrote:

I'm looking for a good DX wide/fisheye, mainly for landscape and macro experimentation (and just for fun (;-) ). Does anyone have experience with the comparative performance of the Nikon 10.5 prime and the Nikon 10-24 zoom (used at the wide end)?

I own both. Both are sharp at 10 and 10.5. But I like the versatility of the 10-24. When on vacation I tend to go with the 10-24 as taking both is just two much. With this said Nikon just took $175.00 off the 10.5, great price, I believe this will become an G lens very soon.

cthahn

What comparison do you want. Your taking about a prime and zoom lens.

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

cthahn wrote:

What comparison do you want. Your taking about a prime and zoom lens.

Thanks to all who have responded.

The specific comparisons I am seeking involve use in the field, particularly landscape and macro.

Are there any quirks or idiosyncrasies with either lens that could only be known through experience, and not by just reading specs and handling the lenses in a store. I know I could rent each of them, but I prefer to apply those funds to the purchase of a lens and rely on the extensive experience of UHH'rs to point out aspects that I might have overlooked.

I'm particularly interested in the practical performance (sharpness, lens aberrations, etc.), of the zoom at the 10mm end, in comparison to the 10.5, for macro and landscape.

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

wthomson wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded. br br The spe... (show quote)

In short, is there any practical difference between the 10.5 and the 10 (end) zoom with respect to making a 40x60 print? I'm reasonably PP skilled (though certainly not a pro), so I could correct for some, but not all, deficiencies.

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

cjc2 wrote:

I owned both the 10.5 and 12-24 as did dadaist and also found them both decent lenses with the 10.5 being my favorite of the two. I have not used the 10-24. I presently own the Rokinon 8mm with the confirm chip and find it fun to play with yet not as good as the OEM brand, just a lot less $$ for what I wanted it for. Best of luck.

Thanks.

What exactly did you prefer about the 10.5 over the 12-24?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

wthomson wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded. br br The spe... (show quote)

I will state what I posted before, maybe you missed it. I wrote that I own both and at 10mm and 10.5 I see no difference in IQ. But, as I stated earlier, the 10-24 is much more versatile than a fixed lens. And the zoom opens wider than the fixed at 10mm. The 10-24 reviews are great, you should read some on the B&H website for that lens. If I was doing it all over again I would just get the zoom. You will see very little difference in a 16X24 print using the zoom at 10mm and the fixed lens. What more could you want to know.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

wthomson wrote:

Thanks.

What exactly did you prefer about the 10.5 over the 12-24?

A few things. First, the 2.8 vs. the F4.0. Second the weight and smaller size. I also preferred the photos from the 10.5. To be perfectly honest, I never really liked the 12-24 and sold it as soon as full frame DSLRs were released. Now that I have a D500, I wish I still had the 10.5 and I may just purchase one with the new sale. OTOH, the 8mm is FUN! Best of luck!

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I'm having fun with the 8mm.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Are you aware that the 10.5 is a fisheye and the 10-24 rectilinear? These are apples and oranges. You really can't do landscape with fisheye. And neither lens is really suitable for macro.

MtnMan Loc: ID

wthomson wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded. br br The spe... (show quote)

The 10-24 does not have VR. If you like low ISO and high f-stop for landscape then you often need to use a tripod.

Image quality is great but there is distortion at 10mm.

Nikon just released an AF-P 10-20 with VR. It is just over $300. Awaiting reports.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

MtnMan wrote:

The 10-24 does not have VR. If you like low ISO and high f-stop for landscape then you often need to use a tripod.

Image quality is great but there is distortion at 10mm.

Nikon just released an AF-P 10-20 with VR. It is just over $300. Awaiting reports.

Do you really think VR is needed with a lens of that focal length? It seems it would be a little redundant and make the lens heavier.

Dennis