43 replies to this topic

[jeremypayne]

Whoa there - this is a thread about the new Nikon 16-35 and 24mm lenses right?

Indeed ... and if the 24/1.4 is anywhere near as good as the 28/1.4, it'll be a real nice lens ...

[Drew]

Paul
I think with 3 FX cameras, Nikon will release more fast lenses, after stupidly de-prioritizing FX for DX for so many years. It'll be interesting to see how Sony stacks up. It's made some inroads in market share. Why do you think Leica M lenses will be of interest to UW shooters soon? You think the Panasonic G series will come out with a FF camera? Without AF and electronic aperture, I would think a fully manual camera would be difficult to shoot unless in optimized conditions?


Fred
I answer questions about equipment and technique mostly. Your aspersions and insinuations were neither. In fact, I considered them to be rude and hence, did not qualify for a response from me.
However, I hope you don't leave in a huff but that's your decision. It is also your decision to be civil about discussions, and not be so thin skinned as to think it's a personal attack when there is disagreement.

[Paul Kay]

Why do you think Leica M lenses will be of interest to UW shooters soon? You think the Panasonic G series will come out with a FF camera? Without AF and electronic aperture, I would think a fully manual camera would be difficult to shoot unless in optimized conditions?

I've given up trying to second guess what might happen next! Ikonoskop can apparently use M lenses, and who knows what might be developed. I agree that fully manual could be tricky, on the other hand, manual focus, manual aperture lenses could be very useful if a large monitor stills or video camera was developed, especially when the manufacturer is prepared to publish data on their design and properties. I have no idea what's on the horizon but after the last decade's developments the future could be very exciting. Lets hope Nikon continue to release more fast lenses too, and as you say Sony is now a player.

[cronix]

Nikon has announced 2 new lenses today, the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR and the AF-S Nikkor 24mm f1.4 ED..
The 16-35mm f4, which is the first FX (full 35mm size sensor) wide angle lens to have built in VR (image stabilization). With a MFD of 0.29m (0.28m from 20-28mm), it'll be a nice addition to the underwater shooter's lens selection. It will ship later this month at a street price of US$1260.
The 24mm has a 0.25m MFD. It will ship in March and will be priced at US$2199.

I have tried the 16-35 today (not underwater though). It looks great. The lens is a bit long because of the VR. I have very high hopes that this lens will perform better then the 14-24 underwater. The 16-35 has a small front lens similar to that of the 12-24. This could be the lens that makes me switch to FX.

[Drew]

Andre
I'm going to Nikon on Wed to try the lens too. Will try to get a side by side with the 14-24. No 24 to try though.

[Tom_Kline]

Got the 16-35VR and made some quickie pool tests.
I used a D2X in a Seacam housing with the wide port (WP) and 70mm of port extension. Lit by a single Seacam 150D strobe with diffuser. I do not have the zoom ring so only shot at a focal length of16mm.
The more distant shot was at f/11. The EXIF data for this shot indicates a subject distance of 330mm.
The closer-up shot was at f/16; subject distance = 300mm. Closer focus is possible.
Looks good.

Attached Images

• 
• 

[Tom_Kline]

Took the 16-35 under water this weekend. Available light shots at f/11 with D2H camera and VR on. I used 65mm of port extension per the Seacam web site.

Attached Images

• 
• 

Edited by Tom_Kline, 21 March 2010 - 10:07 PM.

[Ol Dirty Diver]

Ken Rockwell:

• "The Nikon 16-35mm VR is the sharpest ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) zoom I've ever used. Under test conditions, it's even slightly sharper than the old king, the beastly Nikon 14-24mm."
• "There's no question that it's time to sell your 14-24mm and get this smaller, lighter and far more practical 16-35mm instead."
• "Since this new 16-35mm f/4 VR is slightly sharper than the huge 14-24mm f/2.8, it's time to sell the 14-24mm and buy the 16-35mm f/4, and pocket the difference before used values of the 14-24mm fall."
• "This 16-35mm f/4 VR just became my top recommendation for an FX ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) zoom."

http://www.kenrockwe...kon/16-35mm.htm

I've got this lens (+ D700 + Sea & Sea housing + Zen 8" dome) but I'm still trying to sort out how much extension I need between the housing and dome port...The "40" extension ring is definitely not enough since I've still got fuzzy corners (and the lengthy 16-35mm is coming to within an inch of my dome). Wondering whether I need another 40 or just the SX extension. Anyone got either used that I could buy? Hoping to sort it out soon so I can post some respectable shots!

[Tom_Kline]

The zoom control ring arrived yesterday from Seacam USA but the clouds did not part until 1800 today so I have just a few quick shots to satisfy my curiosity. I set the lens at the minimum focus distance and disabled AF. VR was on. My Seiko watch had to serve as a subject. Shot with a D2H.

The shot of the watch face is at the 35mm FL setting. The over/under shot at 21mm. Fine detail such as scratches on the watch crystal are resolved. Looks like a good lens for close-focus wide-angle.

Attached Images

• 
• 

Edited by Tom_Kline, 28 March 2010 - 08:21 PM.

[photovan]

anyone got this underwater on Full Frame yet? Interested to see the corners...

[StephenFrink]

Anyone using the new 16-35 yet? I'm interested to hear if anyone has an even subjective sense of how this lens compares to 14-24 for UW use. Anyone had them in the water side-by-side?

Tom - It looks like the corners are good at 16mm/F-11 in your tests. Have you used it anymore lately? Does it feel like spring in Alaska yet?

Edited by StephenFrink, 08 April 2010 - 10:06 AM.

[loftus]

Ken Rockwell:

• "The Nikon 16-35mm VR is the sharpest ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) zoom I've ever used. Under test conditions, it's even slightly sharper than the old king, the beastly Nikon 14-24mm."
• "There's no question that it's time to sell your 14-24mm and get this smaller, lighter and far more practical 16-35mm instead."
• "Since this new 16-35mm f/4 VR is slightly sharper than the huge 14-24mm f/2.8, it's time to sell the 14-24mm and buy the 16-35mm f/4, and pocket the difference before used values of the 14-24mm fall."
• "This 16-35mm f/4 VR just became my top recommendation for an FX ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) zoom."

http://www.kenrockwe...kon/16-35mm.htm

I've got this lens (+ D700 + Sea & Sea housing + Zen 8" dome) but I'm still trying to sort out how much extension I need between the housing and dome port...The "40" extension ring is definitely not enough since I've still got fuzzy corners (and the lengthy 16-35mm is coming to within an inch of my dome). Wondering whether I need another 40 or just the SX extension. Anyone got either used that I could buy? Hoping to sort it out soon so I can post some respectable shots!

Are folks using a dioptre? Mine is on order.

[StephenFrink]

Are folks using a dioptre? Mine is on order.

Aha. Looking at Tom's post again I see he was shooting with cropped sensor camera. I'm interested in corner performance on full frame, if anyone has tested under controlled conditions. And also how much port extension is required. If it was a Canon lens I'd have tested it myself already. With Nikon FX, I'm hoping someone else has done the exercise already.

[loftus]

Aha. Looking at Tom's post again I see he was shooting with cropped sensor camera. I'm interested in corner performance on full frame, if anyone has tested under controlled conditions. And also how much port extension is required. If it was a Canon lens I'd have tested it myself already. With Nikon FX, I'm hoping someone else has done the exercise already.

Be patient Steve.
I'll have some stuff next week.

[Viz'art]

I had the lens for a few days and need to bring it back tomorrow, so no U/W stuff to show, but the reason I got it is to put it on our optical bench to see what kind of extension it will require, and boy does it need one, for a 8'' dome port we are talking 3 inch + (79mm) of extension, any longer and it will need a separate zip code , minimum focus seem satisfactory for 8'' dome and bigger, definitely a +4 diopter for a 6 inch dome. I'm curious to try the lens underwater eventually, my 17-35mm f/2.8 is busted (500.00 + for repair) so this my prove to be the twist my arm to get one occasion ;-)

[Tom_Kline]

Tom - It looks like the corners are good at 16mm/F-11 in your tests. Have you used it anymore lately? Does it feel like spring in Alaska yet?

We have some spring weather now. This followed a few days of blizzard. I have not shot the 16-35VR under water since doing the shots above. In fact I used it today for topside shots of the spring!

I found out yesterday that one of my UW pix is on the cover of Alaska magazine (it was a taboo buster): http://www.alaskamag...e/76/3/spawners
Tom

Are folks using a dioptre? Mine is on order.

No, above shots done w/o diopter.

[Tom_Kline]

also how much port extension is required.

I used Harald's recommended PVL for the stream shots above. A-OK on DX format and WP.

[Tom_Kline]

I had the lens for a few days and need to bring it back tomorrow, so no U/W stuff to show, but the reason I got it is to put it on our optical bench to see what kind of extension it will require, and boy does it need one, for a 8'' dome port we are talking 3 inch + (79mm) of extension, any longer and it will need a separate zip code , minimum focus seem satisfactory for 8'' dome and bigger, definitely a +4 diopter for a 6 inch dome. I'm curious to try the lens underwater eventually, my 17-35mm f/2.8 is busted (500.00 + for repair) so this my prove to be the twist my arm to get one occasion ;-)

Because the lens is so long, the working distance is short for the minimum focus distance making it easy to focus on the virtual image w/o diopter.

[Steve Williams]

I found out yesterday that one of my UW pix is on the cover of Alaska magazine (it was a taboo buster): http://www.alaskamag...e/76/3/spawners

Great news Tom, hearty congratulations! A great way to shake off the winter.

Cheers,
Steve

[Alex_Mustard]

I put it on our optical bench to see what kind of extension it will require, and boy does it need one, for a 8'' dome port we are talking 3 inch + (79mm) of extension, any longer and it will need a separate zip code