If you owned the Nikon 12-24 and Tokina 11-16, would you bother purchasing the Tokina 10-17 and why?
Thanks
Would you bother?
Started by Fpena06, Sep 01 2012 06:39 PM
4 replies to this topic
#2
Gudge
-
- Team Wetpixel
-
- 565 posts
Tiger Shark
- Gender:Male
- Location:Pottsville, NSW Australia
-
Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:00 PM
The 12-24 and 11-16 are both rectilinear lenses while the 10-17 is a fisheye lens. For the same focal length fisheye lenses have a much wider field of view (FOV) than a rectilinear lens. FOV of the 10-17 is 180° to 100° while the 11-16 is only 104° to 82°. The minimum focus distance of the 10-17 is 140mm while the 11-16 is over twice that at 300mm. With much closer minimum working distance and wider field of view the 10-17 is a much better lens for close focus wide angle shooting. I used to use a Tokina 12-24 as my UW wide angle lens until the 10-17 was released and since purchasing the 10-17 my 12-24 has rarely gone underwater.
Canon 7D MkII, Nauticam NA-7DMKII housing, 2 x Inon Z240, 2 x Ikelite DS160, Tokina 10-17, Canon 60 & 100 macro, Sigma 150 macro, Kenko 1.X Teleconverters.
#3
tdpriest
-
- Member
-
- 2181 posts
Sperm Whale
- Gender:Male
- Location:Solihull, UK
- Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...
-
Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:52 PM
FX? DX?
#4
Gudge
-
- Team Wetpixel
-
- 565 posts
Tiger Shark
- Gender:Male
- Location:Pottsville, NSW Australia
-
Posted 02 September 2012 - 04:53 PM
I assumed DX because the OP refers to using the 11-16 and 12-24 with a D300s in the Will it work? thread.FX? DX?
Canon 7D MkII, Nauticam NA-7DMKII housing, 2 x Inon Z240, 2 x Ikelite DS160, Tokina 10-17, Canon 60 & 100 macro, Sigma 150 macro, Kenko 1.X Teleconverters.
#5
Fpena06
-
- Member
-
- 33 posts
Triggerfish
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:12 PM
Thanks Gudge. Yes DX.
