Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Any hands on experience with Nikkor 20mm 2.8D ?

nauticam dome nikkor 20mm D750 help tested setup

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 10 March 2017 - 01:44 PM

Need help please!
I am about to start with underwater photography, looking to buy the Nauticam housing for the D750 and learning all that I can before I buy anything and get into the water with it.
Given the big investment, I am aiming to soften the blow by using my existing Nikkor 20mm 2.8D to start with and eventually upgrade to a Sigma 15mm (I am also leaving macro port on hold for a bit).

I know the Sigma 15mm will work with an 8.5" dome, but since the Nikkor 20mm isn't one of the officially supported lenses by Nauticam housings, I haven't found any information of the 20mm working with this same port. I wanted to hear from people that have tested it out and to hear what they thought about it, if the images coming out are decent enough and know if a diopter is needed (if so, which one).
 

 

Any help and feedback will be greatly appreciated. So far dealers are sharing their "gut feelings" and it isn't overly convincing. :P
Thanks!!



#2 adamhanlon

adamhanlon

    Harbor Seal

  • Admin
  • 2054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, UK

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:07 AM

Hi,

 

It was reviewed here;

 

http://wetpixel.com/...de-angle-lenses

 

It works OK behind  9" dome, at apertures of f10 or greater.

 

To be honest, you could probably buy a 170mm dome and a Sigma 15mm for the same amount as a 9"dome!

 

All the best

 

Adam


Adam Hanlon-underwater photographer and videographer
Editor-wetpixel
web | Flickr | twitter | Linkedin | Facebook


#3 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:52 AM

Thank you very much Adam,

I had seen those reviews but I am not sure that the tests on the (edit) nikkor 20mm 1.8 will apply the same way to the 2.8 lens. To start with the 2.8 is shorter in length and I'm assuming it wouldn't need the extension ring.
So far I've been suggested many things and all go in opposite directions. Some say that I may see the dome's hood on my photos and wood need to crop, others that I need the extension ring, etc. Which is why I came here for help. In other posts they mention this nikkor 20mm 2.8D but they didn't come to conclusions on the thread. 

 

I will definitely consider the small dome and fisheye, thanks Adam!

 

To compare the two lenses mentioned I looked at:
https://www.dpreview...on_20mm_1p8g_ed

https://www.dpreview...s/nikon_20_2p8d


Edited by mlecanda, 15 March 2017 - 08:57 AM.


#4 onokai

onokai

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arcata
  • Interests:U/W photo-Diving-Tuna fishing

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:48 PM

I have shot a 20mm and an 18mm and 24mm all 2.8 lens for decades-1st they where manual lens not not autofocus ones.I only have a 18mm and 20mm now and they are both great wide angle lens. I use a subal housing


 Subal ND30- Housing
Way to many strobes to list
 subal d300 setup with Ikelite 161 strobes
Still a film divasourus at heart in a digital world


#5 adamhanlon

adamhanlon

    Harbor Seal

  • Admin
  • 2054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, UK

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:53 AM

 

 

So far I've been suggested many things and all go in opposite directions. Some say that I may see the dome's hood on my photos and wood need to crop, others that I need the extension ring, etc. Which is why I came here for help. In other posts they mention this nikkor 20mm 2.8D but they didn't come to conclusions on the thread. 

 

Sadly, neither of these is actually the key potential problem. 

 

If you have a read of the article, the issue is actually they ability of the lens to have sufficient depth of field to allow you to have sharp corners. The curve of the virtual image caused by the dome mea that some lenses are simply not capable of maintaining focus on the center of the frame an the corners. This is not predictable unless you actually shoot the lens underwater with the dome and correct extension and see what happens. Some lenses are simply better than others (and these are often not the most expensive/high performance lenses...)

 

Unless someone has actually tested the lens, all bets are off (unless you are prepared to do so!)

 

All the best

 

Adam


Adam Hanlon-underwater photographer and videographer
Editor-wetpixel
web | Flickr | twitter | Linkedin | Facebook


#6 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:21 PM

I absolutely agree with you Adam,

 

Since this isn't an officially supported lens and I haven't found any user tests of it with Nauticam domes, I am here asking away and hoping to find people who will hopefully not need to make assumptions on its performance as I am doing so far :)


Thanks Onokai!

Just wondering which dome size you've paired your lenses with :)



#7 Paul Kay

Paul Kay

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales, UK

Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:33 AM

Caveat - I-ts a long time since I used a 20mm f/2.8D Nikkor underwater but I used to and I liked it well enough and it should still work well enough if situated correctly behind a reasonably sized dome port (Seacam, which I supply, certainly suggest that it is ok behind both the WidePort and Superdome, and I'd guess it will work ok behind the CompatPort too). Basically a lens with a 90 degree field of view is about the limit of what used to be considered viable - in the (film) days when smaller domes were more the norm - although often they were used with diopters behind smaller ports. Today we are more critical but you should be able to get it to work well enough. If its not 'supported'-  I assume that simply means that there is no recommended port/extender combination - this is possibly because fewer people use fixed focal length lenses these days and little data is available (I'm surprised nobody who uses one has posted). On the Seacam it simply sits behind the port with no extension and this is where I would start. Personally I prefer fixed focal length lenses and would happily use this 20mm lens if I shot on Nikon - Canon's offering has not impressed me above, let alone below water! 


Paul Kay,Canon EOS5DII SEACAM c/w S45, 8-15, 24L,35L, 60/2.8 (+Ext12II) & 100/2.8 Macros - Sony A7II SEACAM 28/2 & 50/2.8 Macro - UK/Ireland Seacam Sales -see  marinewildlife


#8 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:06 AM

Paul,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience with the 20/2.8! I plan on putting it behind a 21.5cm dome, so it's awesome to get your feedback regarding the Seacam's wideport and superdome.

 

As to not being 'supported', I understand that this isn't the ideal lens to go buy for UW photography, or the most popular choice for focal length (and fixed on top of it), but so far it's the one I have. And after a couple of PM's and these comments up here, I am getting quite enthusiastic about trying it out and seeing how it works for me :) I love that it is rectilinear and that it is a tiny lens - I'm also all for fixed focal lengths, so I'm very happy to hear other people have used it successfully, even if it was some time ago!
 

I really appreciate these forums and community, they are definitely the most helpful source I have found so far, and I am sure it will just keep proving its value once I get the housing underwater :)



#9 Paul Kay

Paul Kay

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales, UK

Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:57 AM

 I understand that this isn't the ideal lens to go buy for UW photography, or the most popular choice for focal length (and fixed on top of it).

I really don't know why. I find fixed focal length lenses make you really think a lot more about how you shoot. I've used 20s, 24s and 35s underwater and I'm thinking about using a 28 in the near future. Many are excellent lenses and can be set up to be very good underwater. Limiting, perhaps but actually are (as above water) a very good discipline, and can give a better appreciation of how to use a specific focal length (and FWIW I've not shot on a zoom for about 5 years below or above water and I do think that this has improved my photography).


Paul Kay,Canon EOS5DII SEACAM c/w S45, 8-15, 24L,35L, 60/2.8 (+Ext12II) & 100/2.8 Macros - Sony A7II SEACAM 28/2 & 50/2.8 Macro - UK/Ireland Seacam Sales -see  marinewildlife


#10 CamelToad

CamelToad

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX USA

Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:12 PM

I did a bunch of dives in the Maldives with a 20mm 2.8D shooting a D810 with a Zen 200mm dome and Nauticam housing - no extension ring. I got some pretty good results from it, and found it was better than I expected, especially with video (aside from the focus noise) and blue water shots like this:

22567076551_9640a4428d_c.jpg


Edited by CamelToad, 24 March 2017 - 05:12 PM.

-James
 

Flickr | 500px (some nsfw in both)


#11 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 26 March 2017 - 05:18 PM

Thank you very much for your input and the sample photo James! Loved it :)

And I will undoubtedly be doing video too, so good news.

 

Very relieved to read these posts. Will be trying my 20mm in a couple of months (!!!)



#12 vbpress

vbpress

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Novara

Posted 26 March 2017 - 10:35 PM

I 've employed the nikon 20af during the film era behin 8" aquatica dome port (no extension or diopter required) and the results were very good. Currently on sea&sea digital and 240 dome no extension need too but the image quality is not outstanding (today we have very hight expectations)
In other words the question is: why choose a cheap lens to fit in a very expensive housing system??
There are better solutions around, but anyway you don't be warried about extension ring, try your lens behind a big dome (8" is min, bigger is better), close aperture to f/11 and put deep blue in the corners like in the James photo.

Have a nice dive and great uw pictures.

ps
In the last edition of Wildlife Photographer of the Year a winning (terryfing beautiful) picture was taken by canon 5d in ikelite housing 8" achrylic ikelite dome and canon 20/2.8 lens. The corner sharpness is good!

Edited by vbpress, 26 March 2017 - 10:43 PM.

Valerio

------------------------------------

http://fotobestiali.blogspot.it/


#13 eric black

eric black

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2017 - 05:33 PM

its a nice small lens (positive travel implications), but I agree with Adam- it really needs to be stopped down to perform.



#14 mlecanda

mlecanda

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 29 March 2017 - 06:14 PM

Thank you Eric, I will make sure to keep that f stop as high as possible !  :))







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nauticam, dome, nikkor, 20mm, D750, help, tested, setup