Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wide Angle FE and Rectilinear


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 paquito

paquito

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 06:57 AM

I would appreciate some helpful opinions in considering a wide angle lens choice; would anyone see a problem with the following considerations on a D200 with a Subal FE2 dome (and appropriate extension)?

Wide angle prime, first choice: Sigma 14mm (seems a good value)
Wide angle zoom, first choice: Sigma 10-20mm (a bit wider, with zoom, without fisheye)

Fisheye zoom, first choice: Tonkina 10-17mmFE
Fisheye prime, first choice: Nikon 10.5mmFE or Nikon 16mmFE or Sigma 15mmFE ?? I'm at a loss here. I don't think my photographic skills are quite up to the 10.5 etc.

And would any of the above you would recommend over the others if one would want to try and shoot a lot of ambient light shots (both color and black and white)?

On a bit of a side note: Will a Sea and Sea dome fit on a Subal housing? The folks at Sea and Sea wont comment on other manufacturer's products and compatibility. A friend wants to give me his dome but thought I would save some effort if it wouldn't work anyway.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

paquito

#2 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 08 May 2007 - 07:04 AM

I would start with the Tokina 10-17mm. The zoom is a great way to build up to shooting fisheye.

A rectilinear wide is useful - but not essential in the short term. Also I wouldn't go too wide - 12-24mm is a pretty good compromise and complement to the 10-17mm.

It is possible to fit a Sea and Sea dome on a subal, but with considerable modification and expense to the mounting. Rarely worth the hassle.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Nikon D7100 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#3 paquito

paquito

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 07:16 AM

Thank you.

I considered the Sigma 10-20 over the Nikon 12-24 as I couldn't find a good reasoning for the cost difference of just about double with both starting at f4?

#4 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 08 May 2007 - 07:42 AM

I know Alex likes the 12-24. I love it topside, but just cannot seem to get the sharpness I like underwater with the FE port and dioptre. As an ideal complement to the 10-17, my vote is for the 17-55 Nikon which gives me consistently sharper images. I use it more than any other lens topside. It is an expensive lens though.

Edited by loftus, 08 May 2007 - 07:44 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#5 davichin

davichin

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1107 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain

Posted 08 May 2007 - 07:55 AM

For WA I would also go with the Tokina or the 10.5 FE..

I would prefer the sigma 10-20 over a 12-24 (tokina or nikon) because of its closer focus ability and no need of diopters (or less powered ones). There is a general strange feeling about the 12-24 as there are some people that can´t get a good configuration for corner sharpness.

I don´t know of any subal to sea&sea converter (I know a sea&sea to subal adapter though from Saga http://www.sagadive....?cat=3#Anch2_66
D300, D7000. 10.5, 10-17, 16, 10-20, 17-70, 60, 105, 150 Hugyfots, Subtronic Novas, Seacams 350, YS250s, YS-D1s
Aqualung Team
www.davidbarrio.com

#6 paquito

paquito

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 08:06 AM

Indeed, the 17-55 is a very favorable lens as an compliment the 10-17FE if one is willing to work out the cost. But if you didn't want the look of the fisheye, wouldn't the 17-55 compromise a little too much on the cropped sensor, wouldn't you be back to a 12-24 or 10-20 at that point?
The 17-55 performance is really wonderful, though I rarely desire to take off my walk-around 18-200 so I can't yet seem to get myself to justify its investment. :)

#7 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 08 May 2007 - 09:08 AM

I would not use the 17-55 as an alternative to the 10-17, only as a complement to it. This would essentially give you all the underwater range (except for macro) you'll ever need. For me sharpness trumps everything else. Honestly, I do not think my 18-200 is sharp enough, so I use the 17-55, and 70-200 as my two main topside lenses.
I was reading my reply and I realised that your concern might be the fishy look of the 10-17. At the 17 end it is definitely less fishy, and should not be an issue underwater in most cases. Topside it could still be a bit of an issue compared to a rectilinear lens.

Edited by loftus, 08 May 2007 - 10:11 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#8 paquito

paquito

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 12 May 2007 - 06:31 AM

Gentlemen,
Have you found it to be true that on the Nikon 12-24, use of filters or diopters need to be as thin as possible, especially for use at the 12mm end? Subal does not list a recommendation of a diopter for the 12-24, but sometimes what is recommended and what is being experienced in the field may be two different things? Alex, you like the 12-24, have you experienced any challenges with the 12-24 that you can share?

Opposingly, the Sigma 10-20 is recommended to have a +2 diopter. I've done a search here at wetpixel but was unsuccessful in finding a comparison of these two lenses (the Nikon 12-24 vs the Sigma 10-20) for performance or sharpness? If someone has a link that I am unaware of I can do some further research versus the risk of asking too many redundant questions.

loftus, have you lost interest in the 12-24 in favor of keeping to your 17-55 that fits that mid-range well. So whenever you want to go wider, do you simply always jump to the FE? Or do you find any desire to go wider than the 17 for rectilinear shots but lack an option that is sharp enough to fit your preference?

Is anyone out of favor of use of a prime like the 14mm or does its cost versus benefit struggle when there are these other options? (With film, the 20mm was nice, still is for film imho)

Thank you for your patience and advice Gentlemen, your input is greatly appreciated.

#9 jcfig

jcfig

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA USA

Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:29 AM

Gentlemen,
Have you found it to be true that on the Nikon 12-24, use of filters or diopters need to be as thin as possible, especially for use at the 12mm end? Subal does not list a recommendation of a diopter for the 12-24, but sometimes what is recommended and what is being experienced in the field may be two different things? Alex, you like the 12-24, have you experienced any challenges with the 12-24 that you can share?

Opposingly, the Sigma 10-20 is recommended to have a +2 diopter. I've done a search here at wetpixel but was unsuccessful in finding a comparison of these two lenses (the Nikon 12-24 vs the Sigma 10-20) for performance or sharpness? If someone has a link that I am unaware of I can do some further research versus the risk of asking too many redundant questions.

loftus, have you lost interest in the 12-24 in favor of keeping to your 17-55 that fits that mid-range well. So whenever you want to go wider, do you simply always jump to the FE? Or do you find any desire to go wider than the 17 for rectilinear shots but lack an option that is sharp enough to fit your preference?

Is anyone out of favor of use of a prime like the 14mm or does its cost versus benefit struggle when there are these other options? (With film, the 20mm was nice, still is for film imho)

Thank you for your patience and advice Gentlemen, your input is greatly appreciated.



Here's a review of all the available (nikon mount) wide digital zooms: Wide Zooms