Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tokina 11-20 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 The lens dilemna... (D7100 & Ikelite)

d7100 ikelite Tokina sigma 1.8

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 NewDSLR

NewDSLR

    Hermit Crab

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 May 2015 - 02:44 AM

Hi folks, Keen to get some feedback on lens/ports/diopters etc.

 

I have a D7100 in an Ikelite housing with 8" dome and port extensions.

 

I've been using the Tokina 11-16 which is sharp and fast, but a bit limited so really like the sound of the just released Tokina 11-20 f2.8. 

 

The 11-20 lens is about 5mm larger OD so wont slot through a port extension, but "I think" the barrel will go onto the camera OK with a 5510.22 port fitted to the housing, and I can then screw the 8" port on over the top of the lens... maybe... 

 

Has anyone tried that already? and if so did you use the 5510.22 or the 5510.24?

 

Most importantly how does the 11-20 perform underwater?   

 

My other lens dilemna is some fast glass beyond 20mm. Like a fool I didn't check if the Nikon 14-24 actually fit in an ikelite port (it doesn't...). So might have to look at the Nikon 17-35/2.8?

 

On paper (and via my wallet) I really like the look of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 as an alternative but cant find any reviews if it's been tried underwater? Has anyone tried this lens? 

 

The Sigma has had mixed reviews for AF but the guys at the camera shop seem to think they sorted that using the Sigma USB dock and at 1.8 it could be pretty interesting with a magic filter in big water. 

 

Sorry for the long first post! Look forward to your comments.

 

 



#2 TimG

TimG

    Sperm Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:Sunlight reefs, warm seas, good food and fine wine. And Manchester City Football Club.

Posted 26 May 2015 - 04:33 AM

Hi NewDSLR

 

I  just wondered why you are keen on the fast glass.

 

It makes sense for sure topside where you might want shallow depth of field. But my experience of shooting WA underwater is that greater depth of field is, for me, usually the norm. It increases the likelihood of sharp edges and the close focussing distance needed to capture the image from the domeport. I very rarely shoot WA with an aperture larger than f8 even with the Tokina 10-17 or the Nikon 10.5mm or Sigma 15mm. With the Nikkor 16-35 it's usually f11.

 

Where are you trying to get to with the Tokina 11-20 that the 11-16 won't take you?


Tim
(PADI IDC Staff Instructor and former Dive Manager, KBR Lembeh Straits)
Nikon D500, Nikkors 105mm and 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm,  Subal housing

http://www.timsimages.uk
Latest images: http://www.shutterst...lery_id=1940957


#3 NewDSLR

NewDSLR

    Hermit Crab

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 May 2015 - 09:37 PM

Hi,

Thanks for rhe comments. Hopefully this'll help.

11-20: The 11-16 is almost a small enough range to just go to a prime, but zooming with fins gets tiring with a 115 steel :). My thinking was that if I'm carrying a zoom in that range, it'd be good if it had a bit more range. It'd also give me some flexibility in the range cross over to a longer lens for critters I can't out fin!.

It looks like a good lens, at a good price, and I can attest to that from the 11-16 so was really seeing if anyone else had tried it in ikelite kit preferably.

I also have a 10.5FE and was considering going to primes but Murphy law will ensure I select the wrong one...

2.8/1.8: On reflection I guess this is historic preference having done most of my early photography with nikonos V and primes which are 2.8 and a faster bit of glass tends to provide more flexibility and carry fstop higher for given iso, and having all at 2.8 "feels" consistent/better. Maybe just my ocd kicking in! :)

I take your point about DOF and was thinking flexibility for under overs on a close subject.. maybe I will rethink that but again everyone says the new sigma is a very sharp lens topside so thought I'd do the bleeding edge thing! :)

#4 TimG

TimG

    Sperm Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:Sunlight reefs, warm seas, good food and fine wine. And Manchester City Football Club.

Posted 27 May 2015 - 01:03 AM

Hey!
 

I'll have to leave it to others to comment on the Ikelite suitability.

 

I'd be a bit wary though of buying an 11-20 if you already have an 11-16 and especially if you are already happy with that. I'm not sure you will see that much difference - although others might correct me.

 

In addition, and maybe more importantly, if you want to use the extra reach of the 20mm end of the lens to zoom closer to the subject, there is a risk that more water will be between the lens and subject which will produce more lighting, backscatter and exposure issues. I'd suggest using those fins.... 

 

I quite understand on the historic preferences issue - I know that feeling well. But underwater is a whole different can of worms. If a fast lens was going to be used a lot topside, then I'd buy it by all means and work out how best to house it for underwater use. But I doubt I'd spend serious money to get something faster just to take underwater. Having said that, who amongst us on Wetpixel can seriously claim to have always bought exactly the right piece of gear?

 

Murphy's Law with the 10.5mm? I think Murphy comes attached to whatever lens you chose. Pick the 11-20 and doncha just know you'll be on a beautiful coral-encrusted wreck, a hammerhead will be perfectly positioned, a mermaid will swim in, give you the eye - and bingo, she's too darned close for the 11mm. And the 10.5 FE is smirking on the boat.

 

Welcome to the world of u/w photography, right?

 

:crazy:  :lol2:


Tim
(PADI IDC Staff Instructor and former Dive Manager, KBR Lembeh Straits)
Nikon D500, Nikkors 105mm and 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm,  Subal housing

http://www.timsimages.uk
Latest images: http://www.shutterst...lery_id=1940957


#5 Larry C

Larry C

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California
  • Interests:Diving, Sports, Antique Motorcycles and Old Trucks

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:38 PM

If you've already got an 11-16, I don't think there's any point in an 11-20.  Difference is miniscule.  10-17 is a much more popular lens if you can get past the fisheye distortion thing.

I've seen very nice pictures with the Nikon 18-35.  The Sigma is 5mm smaller (72mm vs. 77mm filter) and has the same 11" minimum focal length.  The Sigma is also internal focus and internal zoom.  It's almost 5" long, so you'll need a lot of extension probably.  If the length is similar to the Nikon, you might find specs that work.  Good look with a zoom ring if nobody else is using it.  Max. image reproduction is 1:4, so you're not going to get macro out of it.


Edited by Larry C, 22 June 2015 - 07:40 PM.

D500 NA-D500, D300 MDX-D300, 2X YS-D1, Tokina 10-17, Nikon 60AF D, Nikon 105mm AF-D, Nikon 35mm f2.0, L & M Sola 800/1200

Nikon F100 w/Sea & Sea NX100 Pro

 






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: d7100, ikelite, Tokina, sigma 1.8