"Not a lot of difference between the 15 and the 10.5"?
Is this true?
The 10.5 has a field of view of 180 degrees, and it's really easy to shoot your own fins/strobe arms/strobe etc by accident: I think that the 15 (I'm a fisheye fan, and use the 10.5) would be just that bit easier to use.
I wouldn't think about buying a 12-24mm later, it's a lot of money for a little extra flexibility, and it needs a big dome: with a 170mm dome I have still found +2D necessary, and +3D better if working within a couple of feet of the dome. There's been a lot of discussion about the 12-24mm Nikkor and dioptres (such as Herb Seegar's web pages), but the basic need is for a BIG dome, which is awkward to handle.
I have been casting about for a small lens, to use in a small dome to complement the 10.5mm for shooting fish/faces. I haven't found the answer yet, though the discontinued Tokina 17mm aspherical prime lens seems to produce a nice image with rectilinear properties using +2D in the 170mm dome. I haven't found a lens to share Nexus' wonderful glass 160 dome for the 10.5mm, whose diameter seems to be about 10cm (so I have no idea where "160" comes from...).
Tim