14 replies to this topic

[Tim S]

For all the full frame shooters - how often your wide angle rectilinear (16/17-35) got used ? especially when compared to:

1. the Fisheye, and
2. Fisheye + TC combo ?

Are you using the WA rectilinear mostly at the widest end? and if yes why not just stick to the FE + TC which is much lighter, with less drag in water ?

[MIKE POWELL]

Great question! While I shoot with cropped sensor (7D), I'm interested in hearing the responses. Lately I bought the 1.4TC for my Tokina 10-17 & Zen mini-dome...with that do I really need to be lugging around my 9" glass dome, 10-22, & 17-70??

[divegypsy]

I use my 16-35mm lens far more than I use the full-frame fisheye lenses I have - Nikon 16mm f2.8 & Sigma15mm f2.8. I don't particularly like the barrel curve effect of the fisheye lenses and now mostly use the Sigma lens with a very small dome port. I try not to use teleconverters at all because I am not happy with the sharpness loss they cause, particularly when used with a wide-angle lens which is not what teleconverters were designed to work with in the first place. I like to make large prints - normally 16" x 24" - and rarely does a teleconverter provide the level of sharpness I can accept. If what you do with your pictures is usually post them on the internet at 72 dpi then using a TC is probably OK for your particular use.

Fred

[Paul Kay]

24/1.4L remains my mainstay wide-angle underwater. I've also started using the 35/1.4L too - behind a Superdome it is very good indeed. Fisheyes have their place but do IMHO get overused all too easily.

[loftus]

I would say you ideally need both fisheye and rectilinear depending on what you want to shoot. If I were to be stuck with one lens on FF it would be the 16-35, on DX the 10-17. so on DX the minimal travel kit I would agree is a 10-17 and 1.4TC, on FF I'd want more than my 15mm Sigma, even with a TC.

Edited by loftus, 01 May 2012 - 04:23 AM.

[Drew]

Doesn't it come down to the subject and the look one wants? I personally dislike the fisheye look certain shots underwater. The distortion doesn't sit right with me on certain subjects like sharks etc but then again it depends on the shot. Both fisheye and rectilinear have different kinds of distortion There is of course the software solution of "defishing" an image or "cylinder" compensation for the rectilinear wide shot. I've found the rectilinear software option to be sharper than defishing since one is crushing pixels and the other is expanding them. I find DXO's correctional software to be very good for the odd elongated rectilinear fish.

Even the use of a TC is a preference/subjective issue. As Fred says, he's not happy with TC performance and I tend to agree with him for ultimate quality. I find my Kenko drops resolution a bit too much but if it's for 800x600 web shots, it's not going to be an issue.

Here's another discussion about the same subject:

http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=31397

[Tim S]

I would say you ideally need both fisheye and rectilinear depending on what you want to shoot. If I were to be stuck with one lens on FF it would be the 16-35, on DX the 10-17. so on DX the minimal travel kit I would agree is a 10-17 and 1.4TC, on FF I'd want more than my 15mm Sigma, even with a TC.

I agree that much depends on the subject matter. But I have also found that with rectilinear zoom, I tend to stay at the wide end most of the time, so it really boils down to the image quality versus distortion issue. Personally I prefer the FE perspective more.

In this previous thread: http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=31397 you prefer the fisheye with TC to wide rectilinear on FX, so I suppose the new 16-35 with improved image quality has tipped the balance?

[loftus]

In this previous thread: http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=31397 you prefer the fisheye with TC to wide rectilinear on FX, so I suppose the new 16-35 with improved image quality has tipped the balance?

Yes, I am happier with the 16-35 than I was with the 17-35 underwater. Interestingly it seems to be slightly wider than the fisheye with TC, and that probably has to do with the fact that the 16-35 does not need a diopter like I did with the 17-35. As to which perspective I prefer, again depends on the subject. When I shoot my pool stuff, sometimes fisheye distortion is easier to work with and correct at the periphery of the frame, other times I think rectilinear is more 'natural'.
I think one can get too caught up in minimizing gear. Frankly if minimizing gear is a priority, one is best off with a point and shoot in my opinion, far better to have a reasonable all round camera than limit oneself with a high end DSLR by not packing everything you might need, especially if you're traveling half way around the world for a trip. If I take my rig, I'd rather take all the lenses and ports I might need. Pay a few dollars extra, rather than regret that I left something at home.

Edited by loftus, 03 May 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[divegypsy]

I would agree with Loftus. Its worth a few extra $ to take a full set of gear that to find you really need something you could have brought. With airline tickets costing $1000+ and dive resorts or boats costing $300 or more a day, isn't it worth the cost of one day to to be sure you have what you might want? My basic lens kit (I shoot only FX) is five lenses - Sigma 15mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Nikon 24-85mm, Nikon 70-180mm, and Nikon 105mm. If I know I am likely to be shooting only larger subjects, the 105mm is the first to be left at home. A spare camera body is always a MUST!

Fred

Edited by divegypsy, 04 May 2012 - 07:05 AM.

[Tim S]

Yes, I am happier with the 16-35 than I was with the 17-35 underwater. Interestingly it seems to be slightly wider than the fisheye with TC, and that probably has to do with the fact that the 16-35 does not need a diopter like I did with the 17-35....

loftus, I suppose you're using the Subal FE dome for the 16-35 with no diopter? Do you think it's OK regarding edge sharpness? (that is my main concern).

Some guys say that you need a 230 dome but to me that's a PITA for packing etc. I rather stick to the FE port if possible.

Edited by Tim S, 10 May 2012 - 02:47 AM.

[loftus]

loftus, I suppose you're using the Subal FE dome for the 16-35 with no diopter? Do you think it's OK regarding edge sharpness? (that is my main concern).

Some guys say that you need a 230 dome but to me that's a PITA for packing etc. I rather stick to the FE port if possible.

No, I use the Zen 230 now, but the 16-35 does work better with the Subal 8" than the 17-35 did. And works without a diopter.

[AndreaS73]

Hai Fred, just a question about your fish/eyeIs it better the Nikon or the Sigma one? And Why?Here in Italy in shops the Nikon costs about 980€ and the Sigma about 660€.... For this difference in price witch do you suggest to buy?ThanksAndrea

I use my 16-35mm lens far more than I use the full-frame fisheye lenses I have - Nikon 16mm f2.8 & Sigma15mm f2.8. I don't particularly like the barrel curve effect of the fisheye lenses and now mostly use the Sigma lens with a very small dome port. I try not to use teleconverters at all because I am not happy with the sharpness loss they cause, particularly when used with a wide-angle lens which is not what teleconverters were designed to work with in the first place. I like to make large prints - normally 16" x 24" - and rarely does a teleconverter provide the level of sharpness I can accept. If what you do with your pictures is usually post them on the internet at 72 dpi then using a TC is probably OK for your particular use.

Fred

[divegypsy]

Andrea,

I concur with Alex, that the real reason to buy the Sigma 15mm f2.8 vs the Nikon 16mm is that it focuses much closer. And that the Sigma fish eye is more prone to flare, especially if you have to trim its shade to fit it into one of the mini-dome ports. Most of the companies that made the mini-domes for fisheye lenses didn't really consider that the ONLY fisheye available for full-frame Nikon cameras that could focus close enough to work in a mini-dome was the Sigma lens. If they had made their mini-domes about half an inch larger in diameter, the users wouldn't have to trim the lens shade voiding the Sigma warranty. And that half inch bigger would have made only a small bit of difference in how close you could get to the subject.

Fred

[Undertow]

I wholeheartedly prefer my 16-35mm in a large 9" dome (D700). I don't really like the FE distortion. On my last trip i didn't even use my sigma 15mm FE.

Mostly I use it at 16mm but the 35mm end is available for things like fish or shark shots (great for wide portraits with very friendly fish). One great example for me of its versatility is when we get the humpbacks migrating through here. 16mm is great for them but occasionally we run into dolphins & pelagic turtles, and 35mm works for them (if that's too wide, they're too far to make good pics anyways). With often no time to change lenses i've missed a few good dolphin ops in the past with the FE+TC i used for whales before .

Of course that's a unique circumstance but it just reminds me how much I love that lens. Cheers,

Chris

[Tim S]

Thanks everyone. I'm convinced.

Just bought a 16-35 to replace my oldish 17-35. Can't wait to bring it underwater!