36 replies to this topic

[marpacifica]

Hi,

I am looking into housing my D3 in an Aquatica, but am unsure whether the Nikon 14-24mm will do better in the 9.25" optical dome port. I already have the 8" dome port from when I was shooting with the Fuji S2 and a Nikon 12-24mm.

Also, can I use the same extension ring that I used on the 8" port, or do I have to get a different ring for the 14-24mm?

I tried searching for this topic but ended up with goose eggs.

Thank you!

[Viz'art]

The 9.25 dome will fare better, given the larger radius, as for the extension, my initial testing concluded that the optical center was pretty far up front of the film (sensor) plane, the extension suggested at this time is the 18458

You might also want to download the latest lens chart for the D3 housing from our Website www.aquatica.ca

[marpacifica]

Thank you. Will check out the lens chart on your site.

[scorpio_fish]

I've used both. The 9.25" is much, much better.

[loftus]

Jean,
Have you seen any images with the 9.25" dome and 14-24; do you have any to post? Are you having better success than others out there with this lens?

[Viz'art]

I have to get some pool time with it, I will post my result ASAP. all I have now is my own optical bench result. I am really looking forward to the result as I have a keen interest in the lens and our new housing design for the D700.

Cheers

[Warren_L]

I have to get some pool time with it, I will post my result ASAP. all I have now is my own optical bench result. I am really looking forward to the result as I have a keen interest in the lens and our new housing design for the D700.

Cheers

I am interested in this also! Let me know what you find out.

[eric black]

Jean
Can you also comment on the weight difference between this port and the 8 inch acrylic dome port? I am interested in the upgrade but with recent luggage limitations and the fact that I carry my dive gear with me as well- Im not too sure I can get another couple of pounds overseas without sacrificing something from my already sacrificed to death gear selection.
thanks
eric

[Viz'art]

8" dome with shade and neoprene cover is 3.5 pounds
9.25" Glass dome with shade and neoprene cover is 4.5 pounds

Loose a few fruits of the loom, its worth the extra pound

[Warren_L]

Jean,
Have you seen any images with the 9.25" dome and 14-24; do you have any to post? Are you having better success than others out there with this lens?

I'd be interested in seeing any samples, if anyone has any to show.

[Viz'art]

Warren, i'm hitting the pool tomorrow morning, so by the end of this week I should have some stuff to send you for evaluation.

i'll try and get the 24-70 in the water as well

Cheers

[Viz'art]

Here are some of the results, wider than f:8 this lens is not really a bright performer, once you close it down it starts to improve and is quite fair around f:16, althought not a nobel prize winner, I would still consider that lens for full frame camera and definetly would recommend it for crop sensor.

the last one is a 100% crop of the F16 frame.

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[james]

Hot Dam* this is useful Jean - thanks! How close were you?

I wish everyone had a test jig like that.

Cheers
James

[Viz'art]

About a meter away if I recall, I move the tripod in and out in order to fill the frame area, but don't really note the precise distance, the big dome make a hell of a difference, anybody want's to shoot this lens with a full frame will have to get this large dome if they want anykind of success, next step will be testing the same lens on my D200 with various ports & extension in order to validate my optical bench results.

[Drew]

Nice Jean. Thanks for the hard work.

[loftus]

Here are some of the results, wider than f:8 this lens is not really a bright performer, once you close it down it starts to improve and is quite fair around f:16, althought not a nobel prize winner, I would still consider that lens for full frame camera and definetly would recommend it for crop sensor.

the last one is a 100% crop of the F16 frame.

Just want to clarify Jean; this is a test of the 14-24 right? From this test you are telling us that the 14-24 is only really beginning to have sharp corners at f16. This is what we've seen at least in pictures with other domes. I don't see anything here that says the larger dome helps any more than the 8' dome.
I'm still hearing that the 14-24 is not really a great lens underwater, and that for now the 17-35 is a better choice for full frame rectilinear wide. It would be interesting to see comparisons of the 17-35 and 14-24 behind an 8" and a 9.25".
I do appreciate what you have done here, but honestly I think all manufacturers should perform these tests with a variety of lenses, and post results BEFORE selling us products or making recommendations, and I'm not sure why this is not standard procedure.

Edited by loftus, 31 July 2008 - 10:27 AM.

[Viz'art]

Here is the result for the 8 inch dome

and a 100% crop of the 8 inch at f:16

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[Warren_L]

For comparison, here are a couple of shots with the D3/14-24mm combo using the Sea&Sea D3 housing and 8" glass port. These were shot at 14mm, f/5.

[Drew]

I do appreciate what you have done here, but honestly I think all manufacturers should perform these tests with a variety of lenses, and post results BEFORE selling us products or making recommendations, and I'm not sure why this is not standard procedure.

Well Jeff, they (and their resellers) do try to do this. Look how hard guys like Jean, Stephen, Ryan and others work at trying to publish their findings. Then there are the manufacturers who don't even dive
That's why WP is so popular

[loftus]

Well Jeff, they (and their resellers) do try to do this. Look how hard guys like Jean, Stephen, Ryan and others work at trying to publish their findings. Then there are the manufacturers who don't even dive
That's why WP is so popular

My point exactly; except for Jean (and believe me it scores points when he does this), I have not seen the manufacturers do this. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect manufacturers (not their resellers after the fact) to provide standardised charts like these with their products and posted on their websites. It would seem to be a pretty simple matter to build a small test tank with a chart like this and run your product (housing lens / dome combinations) through this type of testing before making recommendations to your customers. I don't expect them to test every lens but in situations like rectilinear wide difficulties, having objective data would be helpful.
And yes, that's why Wetpixel is so great, but we still should not let the manufacturers of the hook of doing this type of basic testing. These are expensive decisions we make.
I hope that manufacturers (not just Jean) read Wetpixel, so that they can understand better what their customers want and need, whether it's about dome /lens performance, features and controls, D300 fitting a D700 housing etc.

Edited by loftus, 31 July 2008 - 12:28 PM.