Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Which is king on Nikon DX 16mm fisheye / 16-35mm / 8-16mm Sigma


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Baumann

Baumann

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Now I'm only talking about image quality and sharpness here not versatility, for subjects about 2ft 6" from an 8" Ike acrylic dome (assuming the correct extension is fitted of course for each lens)?
So with all lenses set at 16mm which would perform the best at say f/8 with correctly positioned and set strobes etc

#2 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:59 PM

Which is best: a Ferrari or a Range Rover? Horses for courses...

What are you wanting to photograph? How important is sharpness in the corners? Why not a Sigma 15mm, which may be better than the lenses that you mention?

#3 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:48 PM

Yeah, I agree with Tim. Especially with a TC.

Jack
Jack Connick
Optical Ocean Sales.com Sea & Sea, Olympus, Ikelite, Athena, Zen, Fix, Nauticam, Aquatica, Gates, 10Bar, Light & Motion, iTorch/I-DAS & Fantasea Line -
Cameras, Housings, Strobes, Arms, Trays & Accessories

Blog & Gallery: Optical Ocean: Above & Below
Flickr Gallerys: Optical Ocean on Flickr

#4 Baumann

Baumann

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:09 PM

Yes my apologies, and indeed I'm not limiting to the lenses I've mentioned for sure... more the focal length 15-18mm really seams to work best for me.
I currently use an 18-70mm with +4 which does a pretty good job, far better than my 10-17mm at the 17mm end but I still think it could be a touch better.
Subject being babies, of the human variety in the pool. I'll post a couple of examples tomorrow.

#5 Baumann

Baumann

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

Ok, here's a couple of examples...

Tokina 10-17mm @ 17mm

Posted Image


Nikon 18-70mm @18mm

Posted Image

To me the 18-70mm wins in this scenario, but I still think we can do better.

#6 Baumann

Baumann

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:37 AM

Well, I thought I'd conduct a simple test with both the Tokina 10-17mm and Nikon 16mm.

Please excuse the subject matter and the slight difference in camera to subject position... for the purposes of this little side by side test I think the 2-3" distance variation is of little importance. To be honest I was expecting the Nikon prime to be a little shaper but not by this much! I shot a few frames with each lens to be sure that the results were consistent and they are.

Anyway, with the help of Peppa Pig and my favourite mug here we are:

Posted Image
Tokina 10-17mm original shot SOOC just resized for the web.

Posted Image
Nikon 16mm original shot SOOC just resized for the web.

And what actually shows the detail some 100% crops:

Posted Image
Tokina 100% crop

Posted Image
Nikon 100% crop

Now these are static camera and subject shots with flash so no motion involved to account for any blur.
Not at all scientific but it's definitely made up my mind for this week's shoot.

Remember these are straight out of camera with no sharpening or anything. I should probably have used a different subject I know... a sponged print mug doesn't have very defined edges to the printing but hey, I think it shows the difference ok, especially all the little bubbles on the surfaces.

Now can I be bothered to do the same with the Nikon 18-70mm which involves striping down the port? ...Maybe later.

Edited by Baumann, 13 November 2012 - 03:42 AM.