Should Nikon change future 10.5mm DX fisheye lenses to be FX compliant

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Should Nikon change future 10.5mm DX fisheye lenses to be FX compliant

(11 posts) (6 voices)

Tags:

Nikon 10.5mm DX

bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

You might know that a few 10.5mm DX lenses have been modified to work on FX. But most people would properly stay away from getting going with a hacksaw on their brand new lens

So why could Nikon not just change the lens slightly to make it FX compliant. It would be very easy, the lens hoot have to change from a permanent design to one that can be removed or slide back. Now you have 2 great lenses in one, incl 220 degree fisheye on your FX camera

Nikon properly wont so if I get one and move to FX, the hacksaw would have to get into action

Pete

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

So the 16mm F2.8D Fisheye isn't wide enough FX? All Nikon needs to do is make an AF-S version and it's all good, IMO.

Posted 2 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Actual it is not, that,s why people hack the 10.5mm DX lens

16mm FX = app 180 degree on FX

10.5mm DX = app 180 degree on DX

10.5mm DX lens Hacked = app 220 degree circular image on FX camera, yes you can aim straight up and expose the ground all around you

And it would be a simple mod from Nikon to change future lenses, does not remove anything on the lens if used on DX, but now adds a FX version also

Pete

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Okay, but the part I don't get is what modification you have to make in order for it to work with FX? Just shoot in FX rather than crop mode.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Actually the view is "only" 200 degrees, I think. The modification is that they literally hack off the lens "hood".

I don't really see the point to it either.

Posted 2 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

Some folks are into the circular fisheye thing, why not? But you will have to be a little more careful as the "hood" is the only thing even remotely protecting the front of the lens. Love my 10.5 and I'm not brave enough to literally hack it up. I have used it on film, though, and I see the attraction, especially if you don't have a 16mm fish...

Posted 2 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Yes it is hard to see the point of getting the hacksaw going, but why not have Nikon make the lens hood so it can be removed, it would not change the lens if you prefer it on DX, just leave the hood, but now you could actual just remove the hood and that fisheye FX look

Like the point of my thread, the change wouild not add extra cost, just makes the lens work on both DX and FX as different kind of lenses

Pete

Posted 2 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

Yeah, Pete, that really would be a good idea. Everyone who has one eventually tries this lens on FX or film!

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Sure, why not? Mold the exterior of the lens to accept a metal hood. Voila.

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

I was told the the 14mm 2.8 does exactly what this lens does for Dx...

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

kyoshinikon said:
I was told the the 14mm 2.8 does exactly what this lens does for Dx...

14mm is nowhere near 10.5mm. I guess people like that huge field of view.

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Should Nikon change future 10.5mm DX fisheye lenses to be FX compliant

Reply