Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Which WAL for a limited budget


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 wizbowes

wizbowes

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2009 - 11:37 AM

I'm scrapping together some cash selling off my old stuff to buy a new WAL. I'll only have around 400GBPor so, so I was thinking of either a Tokina 11-16 or a Tokina 12-24. I'm using a D70 in Subal housing - have an 8 inch dome port waiting. I have 60mm and 90mm so this would be my only Wide Angle. For that reason I'm veering more towards the 12-24 for the extra range.

Is that the right thing to do?

Edited by wizbowes, 13 September 2009 - 11:37 AM.


#2 Stefin

Stefin

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:north west london

Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:44 PM

Don't forget the Tokina 10-17, its a more compact lens than the 12-24 and I believe closer focusing, also its a big hit with all the guys that use it here at wetpixel.

#3 wizbowes

wizbowes

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2009 - 01:04 PM

10-17 is a fish-eye though isn't it? Any downsides to that? Not as useful topside I presume....

#4 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 07:12 PM

i'm not sure the extra range of the 12-24 makes that much difference UW, and i'm not sure the extra IQ of the 11-16 makes that much difference UW either. however, i certainly like the speed and IQ of the 11-16 on land, but don't have experience with the 12-24

UW, the 10-17 may be the best, but also don't much care for fisheyes on land -- i expect that PT Lens does a pretty good job de-fishing the 10-17, but again don't have any experience

#5 Dunadin

Dunadin

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, CA

Posted 13 September 2009 - 08:53 PM

I use the Tokina 12-24 quite a bit topside and UW and love it. I also own the 10-17 fisheye, but don't find much use for it topside. On the 10mm side it has a field of view of about 180 degrees and focuses to about 2 inches or less. The advantage of the 10-17 is that it has much better corner sharpness than rectilinear lenses like the 12-24. Personally, I find the 12-24 to be a much more versatile lens. I have not used the 11-16, so not much I can contribute to that point.

All Tokina lenses are build very solid and the optical quality is also very good.

Sergio Lucato
Canon 50D, Ikelite Housing, 2xDS-160


#6 UWphotoNewbie

UWphotoNewbie

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 September 2009 - 01:29 PM

If you want to use this lens primarially underwater, I'd go with the 10-17 FE. Fisheye lenses are great underwater because you don't see the distortion much at all and you can get a big object really close so everything will be sharper. Water clarity not optical performance is the bigger factor underwater. Plus at 17mm, this lens isn't really that fishy. Don't compare fields of view for fisheyes and rectaliniear lenses with focal lengths directly. This lens at 12mm is much wider than the 12-24mm would at 12mm. At 10mm it gives almost 180 degrees.

If you want this for both, or you do lots of wrecks, I'd get the 11-16mm. The optical quality and speed are much better than the F4-ish 12-24 or 10-24 lenses. It will focus faster because of the wider aperture, you can use filters better, its wider. It has less range but its better to zoom with your fins than with your lens underwater anyway. Use your macro lenses if you want macro. I think you'll be dissapointed with the results at 24mm as a macro lens anyway.

Edited by UWphotoNewbie, 15 September 2009 - 06:52 AM.

UWPhotoNewbie: Not such a newbie to diving and UW photography.

Nikon D70: 60 mm, 11-16mm, 105mm, 15mm, 10.5mm

Ikelite iTTL Housing, dual Ikelite DS125

Nikon D600 topside 14-24, 28-300, 70-200, 35,50,85


#7 Undertow

Undertow

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 14 September 2009 - 06:31 PM

if you want a topside lens get the 11-16mm. its superb optically, especially for a 3rd party lens. No experience with the 12-24 tokina, but ive heard the 11-16mm is superior - its at least as sharp as my nikon 12-24mm which has now left my bag permanently. just be aware that the long end of the 10-17FE is about the same FOV as the wide end of the 11-16mm.
D200, Aquatica, 10.5, sig 15, 12-24, 17-55, 60, 105
3x SB-105

#8 wizbowes

wizbowes

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2009 - 04:29 AM

Hmm - thanks for the tips.

I get to dive so seldom at the moment (waiting for my baby and toddler to be old enough to go to kids clubs on holiday!) that I can't justify a FE that I wouldn't use on the surface. So I'm now thinking the 11-16mm and perhaps FE it up in a few years when I'm get in the water a bit more frequently.

Thanks all.