LoveTheBerry said:
Good information. I am going to purchase both after reading all the comments. The Fisheye will be a good "niche" lens for the second camera body and the wide lens for landscape pics. Thanks to all for the comments.

OMG, somebody actually folows my advice !! :-)
Wise choice if you can afford it !! :-)

kyoshinikon said:
"Is there THAT much a difference in the Nikkor Fisheye 16mm or should I spend the extra and get the 14-24mm f/2.8 ED AF lens...."

Difference in what? While I don't own the 16mm I use both the 14-24mm f/2.8 (both fx & Dx) and the 10.5mm f/2.8 (mostly dx)... They are different animals... both are deliciously wide and tack sharp (the corners suffer a bit wide open on the 10.5). Several people tell me that the 16mm is a tad softer than the other 2. The non round distortion is much easier to work with than the roundness in the fisheye if you are shooting a more conventional subject or when the horizon doesn't fall in the center. The downside is that the 14-24mm is about 3 times as large and heavy as either the 16mm or 10.5mm. If you want a compromise Nikon makes a 14mm f/2.8 prime which is Lighter and smaller than the 16mm but doesn't distort like the 16mm...

Good information. I am going to purchase both after reading all the comments. The Fisheye will be a good "niche" lens for the second camera body and the wide lens for landscape pics. Thanks to all for the comments.

TaoTeJared said:
They are very different lenses. You need to seek that understanding first.

If you want a fish eye - I have the Sigma 15mm which is just as good as a fisheye and is much cheaper.

What TaoTeJared says is so true. Shooting with a wide angle, covering about 95° horizontal is a heck of a lot different than the 150° with the whopping distortion of the fisheye...

Maybe this question is about comparing a 20mm with a 35mm.... that much difference. What one wants to shoot is the question not the actual lens.

Meh, fisheye lenses are a "niche" lens.

After a few shoots, I'd feel the fisheye look would get kinda old quick.
If you are a skateboarder / snowboarder / then go for it.

Wideangle is much more veratile than a Fisheye

They are very different lenses. You need to seek that understanding first.

If you want a fish eye - I have the Sigma 15mm which is just as good as a fisheye and is much cheaper.

"Is there THAT much a difference in the Nikkor Fisheye 16mm or should I spend the extra and get the 14-24mm f/2.8 ED AF lens...."

Difference in what? While I don't own the 16mm I use both the 14-24mm f/2.8 (both fx & Dx) and the 10.5mm f/2.8 (mostly dx)... They are different animals... both are deliciously wide and tack sharp (the corners suffer a bit wide open on the 10.5). Several people tell me that the 16mm is a tad softer than the other 2. The non round distortion is much easier to work with than the roundness in the fisheye if you are shooting a more conventional subject or when the horizon doesn't fall in the center. The downside is that the 14-24mm is about 3 times as large and heavy as either the 16mm or 10.5mm. If you want a compromise Nikon makes a 14mm f/2.8 prime which is Lighter and smaller than the 16mm but doesn't distort like the 16mm...

Í'd say : When in doubt , get them both.. :-)

Maybe there is a nice dealer out there that will give you a discount when you buy both lenses in 1 go ? :-)

How nice, I was looking for a discussion on wide angles.... and this is because after about 50 years, I figured out what the "angle of view" really means. Maybe this is helpful in deciding on the fisheye/wide angel issue.

For example, the 14-24mm/f2.8 covers 95°. WHAT, it says 114° in the literature. But the horizontal coverage, the "useful" coverage is only 95°. And the fisheye..... mmm... about 150°. The 10.5mm on FX will be about 151.5°. The 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is about 89°. All horizontal coverage, or across the wide aspect.

And here is a sketch of the 10.5 on DX and FX, FYI.

Remember the 14mm will cover the FX across the wide aspect at about 95°....

If there are errors in my calculations, let me hear about them.

Well the obvious difference is the fact that one is a fisheye lens (which I would never buy) and the other is just an ultrawide lens. I think the 14-24 is probably the superior lens, but they have different purposes. Do you want mostly non-distorted wide angle photos? or Do you want distorted fisheye pictures? 14-24 is going to be more versatile, I have heard it is a great lens. Looks like maybe the 16 isn't very nice wide open.

theyre different types of lenses...im stating the obvious but..really they are very different.

You are going to get a response of each different viewpoint so I don't know how useful this thread is going to be - only you will know what is good for you. I personally would not spend that much on a fisheye lens, others with deeper pockets will say go for it.

Why don't you rent both and then you will know?

Is there THAT much a difference in the Nikkor Fisheye 16mm or should I spend the extra and get the 14-24mm f/2.8 ED AF lens.

There is a big difference in price.