Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tokina 11-16mm vs Tokina 10-17mm????


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 NWDiver

NWDiver

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 01 January 2011 - 05:30 PM

Anyone shot both of these lenses underwater? I am just curious what you think about them. Especially interested if one is better on cameras that can also shoot video???

Thanks...

#2 KirkD

KirkD

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2011 - 07:11 PM

I have shot with the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, but not the wide angle. I shoot with the Nikon D90. I have been pleased with the video on the Fisheye. I would only recommend that you set you camera up so that you can lock the exposure. If you don't, the video will change exposure while you are shooting.

Kirk

#3 Rainer

Rainer

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 01 January 2011 - 09:53 PM

Kirk, any links to your videos with the 10-17mm? Would love to check out some more clips with that lens.

I have shot with the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, but not the wide angle. I shoot with the Nikon D90. I have been pleased with the video on the Fisheye. I would only recommend that you set you camera up so that you can lock the exposure. If you don't, the video will change exposure while you are shooting.

Kirk



#4 Balrog

Balrog

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poole UK

Posted 02 January 2011 - 01:28 AM

Both are exceptionally capable lenses.

The 10-17 is excellent for CFWA but being a fisheye gives barrel distortion of any straight objects towards the edge of the frame.

The 11-16 has a couple of stops advantage and is rectilinear but therefore not as wide compared to the FE as the numbers might suggest. It won't focus quite as close but will happily take a +2 dioptre, (maybe +3) behind an 8" dome without compromising infinity. There's no facility to fit filters to the front of the 10-17.

I tend to use the 10-17 for open reef work and the 11-16 rectilinear for wrecks where there are lines I want to keep straight.

Never used an SLR for video but would imagine extra aperture could be an advantage in the potentially lower intensity of video lighting. Videographers might like to comment on the effect of barrel distortion on moving objects or whilst swimming through a wreck passage - not sure if its effective or distracting.

#5 ileiman

ileiman

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 03 January 2011 - 02:11 AM

I must agree that the Tokina 10-17 fisheye is excellent for any underwater use where you don't need to keep straight lines. But, even on wrecks it doesn't look too bad.
I haven't tried the 11-16 but it would be interesting to compare the results between a fisheye and wide-angle rectilinear.

Kirk, any links to your videos with the 10-17mm? Would love to check out some more clips with that lens.

I have plenty of HD video shot with the Tokina 10-17, but unfortunately haven't been able to find a really good editing solution yet. For one thing, I need to buy a new computer, as my existing ones simply don't have enough resources to handle HD.
But here is one randomly chosen full-HD clip at YouTube:

Here you can also see what happens when you zoom from 10mm to 17 mm.
This clip is straight out of the camera, no editing whatsoever, and merely a test if and how the uploading to YouTube works.

Here is a clip from a wreck at the Baltic Sea, uploaded just for testing how Picasa handles HD video:
http://picasaweb.goo...391299900563794
Not shown in HD although shot in full-HD, as Picasa doesn't support HD yet. Also a clip straight out of the camera without any editing.
Canon 7d, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro, Sigma 10-17mm OS HSM, Ikelite housing,
2x Ikelite ds-161 strobes with Stix 12"+12" arms with floats.
Canon ixus 980is in Canon housing.
Olympus c8080wz in Olympus housing.
website www.leiman.fi.

#6 NWDiver

NWDiver

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 03 January 2011 - 06:46 AM

Thanks ileiman, looks pretty good, the fisheye does not bother me, but I have always liked that look. It would be great to see video shot with the 11-16.

#7 Scubamoose

Scubamoose

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Estonia
  • Interests:Diving, photography, travel.

Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:08 AM

Here is a clip from a wreck at the Baltic Sea, uploaded just for testing how Picasa handles HD video:
http://picasaweb.goo...391299900563794


This looks really good! Is this wreck somewhere at the Finnish coast?
The DS-161 video lights don't look really powerful. Or is it just me?

Cheers
Karel

Edited by Scubamoose, 03 January 2011 - 07:09 AM.

My Flickr
www.karelbernard.com

Karel Bernard
Canon G9 in Ikelite Housing; SubStrobe DS-160
WA lens Ikelite W-20; Inon UCL-165 M67 Close-up Lenses

#8 ileiman

ileiman

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:41 AM

This looks really good! Is this wreck somewhere at the Finnish coast?

Yes, it is the wreck of S/S Park Victory at Utö, Finland. Location North 59 46,098 East 21 24,051 WGS84.
S/S Park Victory was an American cargo ship, that sank on Christmas Day 1947 in a storm near the island of Utö.
It is the largest shipwreck in the region, at which diving is allowed - however it is within a military zone so you would need a permit from the military to dive there. Utö is a very remote place and hard to reach. I should also note that diving inside the wreck is considered extremely dangerous, due to the poor present condition. The bridge has already collapsed.

More about the wreck:
http://en.wikipedia....SS_Park_Victory
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Victory_ship
http://fi.wikipedia..../S_Park_Victory
http://www.hylyt.net...id=park_victory

The DS-161 video lights don't look really powerful. Or is it just me?

Indeed the DS-161's as video lights aren't very powerful for wide angle use, but with a narrower lens they are OK in darker waters like in Finland. At clear waters (like Red Sea) they are not very useful for daytime use either. But as focus light they are excellent.

Edited by ileiman, 03 January 2011 - 07:47 AM.

Canon 7d, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro, Sigma 10-17mm OS HSM, Ikelite housing,
2x Ikelite ds-161 strobes with Stix 12"+12" arms with floats.
Canon ixus 980is in Canon housing.
Olympus c8080wz in Olympus housing.
website www.leiman.fi.

#9 northseaexplorers

northseaexplorers

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Bergen/Ålesund

Posted 11 January 2011 - 03:28 AM

Here's some video footage (wreck) shot with the 7D and Tokina 11-16mm in low-light:



I chose the 11-16 for pretty much the same reasons that Balrog mentions in his post.

Jørgen | vimeo.com/jorgenb


#10 NWDiver

NWDiver

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 11 January 2011 - 07:02 AM

northseaexplorer thanks for the clip looks great! Dumb question when shooting video are you leaving the ISO on Auto or are you setting it?

#11 ileiman

ileiman

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 January 2011 - 07:59 AM

Here's some video footage (wreck) shot with the 7D and Tokina 11-16mm in low-light:



I chose the 11-16 for pretty much the same reasons that Balrog mentions in his post.

Thanks a lot for sharing this, looks really good. The 11-16mm gives a nice picture too.
Stunning visibility, the water is really clear.
And despite of this, even the 2x 24W HID's don't quite give as much light as I would have thought.
Canon 7d, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro, Sigma 10-17mm OS HSM, Ikelite housing,
2x Ikelite ds-161 strobes with Stix 12"+12" arms with floats.
Canon ixus 980is in Canon housing.
Olympus c8080wz in Olympus housing.
website www.leiman.fi.

#12 northseaexplorers

northseaexplorers

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Bergen/Ålesund

Posted 11 January 2011 - 12:52 PM

northseaexplorer thanks for the clip looks great! Dumb question when shooting video are you leaving the ISO on Auto or are you setting it?


I set the ISO manually. I will try auto but I don't have high hopes. Furthermore, with the Nauticam housing changing ISO becomes a breeze. I actually sacrificed getting a 5D2 in favour of the housing. :)

Jørgen | vimeo.com/jorgenb


#13 northseaexplorers

northseaexplorers

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Bergen/Ålesund

Posted 11 January 2011 - 12:56 PM

Thanks a lot for sharing this, looks really good. The 11-16mm gives a nice picture too.
Stunning visibility, the water is really clear.
And despite of this, even the 2x 24W HID's don't quite give as much light as I would have thought.


No there is never enough light is there.:) Vis was good, but I used some old lights that really aren't that good. Poor reflector, no diffusor and since this was my very first dive with the camera I really did not focus to much on the lighting.

Jørgen | vimeo.com/jorgenb


#14 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2011 - 04:50 PM

Here's some video footage (wreck) shot with the 7D and Tokina 11-16mm in low-light:



I chose the 11-16 for pretty much the same reasons that Balrog mentions in his post.


Excellent video you have there Northsea,

I hope I can get the same results with my new Nikon D7000 as the video on the D90 isnt that adjustable.

Regards Mark

Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing

Nikon D500 with Aquatica Housing
Nikon 10.5mm FE, Tokina 10-17mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikkor 60, Nikkor 80-400mm


#15 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2011 - 04:58 PM

Here is an unedited video with the Nikon D90 and Tokina 10-17mm. Its not the best quality as I didnt know how to really use the video part of the D90 at the time. But it gives you an idea of how wide it looks at 10mm.

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

It was took much action to take stills so I had a play with video instead.

Regards Mark

Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing

Nikon D500 with Aquatica Housing
Nikon 10.5mm FE, Tokina 10-17mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikkor 60, Nikkor 80-400mm


#16 SBarrows

SBarrows

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 13 January 2011 - 11:30 AM

Which do you like more?

#17 Balrog

Balrog

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poole UK

Posted 13 January 2011 - 12:21 PM

Here is an unedited video with the Nikon D90 and Tokina 10-17mm. Its not the best quality as I didnt know how to really use the video part of the D90 at the time. But it gives you an idea of how wide it looks at 10mm.

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

It was took much action to take stills so I had a play with video instead.

Regards Mark


Nice footage Mark.

Using the 10-17 FE for stills, you can compose to control the sunball but it's clear that this is more of a problem with video.

#18 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2011 - 06:18 PM

Nice footage Mark.

Using the 10-17 FE for stills, you can compose to control the sunball but it's clear that this is more of a problem with video.


Hi Balrog,

I love getting Sunbursts into my stills with the Tokina 10-17mm but a few of my Videographer friends basically said that it doesnt work when shooting in video (either DSLR or dedicated Video cameras). Unfortunately the Nikon D90 does have much adjustment with its video and I cant wait to get the new Nikon D7000 underwater for a play.

Regards Mark

Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing

Nikon D500 with Aquatica Housing
Nikon 10.5mm FE, Tokina 10-17mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikkor 60, Nikkor 80-400mm