Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on full frame


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 buddy

buddy

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:diving, photography, golf

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:27 AM

Does anybody shoot UW the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8? And if yes which dome port/ext ring  are u using? any experience?

thanks for info!

 

Thinking to switch on this lens and selling my current 16-35 f/4 using a Subal 9 inch Domeport (type 4) on Nikon D4.

 

Juerg


Juerg
www.jvpictures.com
Nikon D4s, Nikon 16-35 /f4 VR II, 70-180,105mm f/2.8, Subal ND4 housing and ports, 2 Subtronic Fusion (flash and video lights), Sigma 15mm /f2.8, Subal 4" Minidome


#2 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:41 AM

I've shot it, but I don't rate it for all round underwater use anywhere close to the 16-35mm. The corner performance just isn't good enough. I think it can be useful for shooting big animals in the blue - but unless this is the only type of photography you do - I think you'd end up owning both lenses. 

 

This is my favourite shot with the 14-24mm on the D4:

 

 

There are some thoughts on lens choice here: http://wetpixel.com/...es-subal-nd4/P3

 

All that said, I've not used the 14-24mm much underwater and I'd actually be interested in seeing more results from this lens, too. 

 

Alex


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Nikon D7100 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#3 D_Boy

D_Boy

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:09 AM

Hi,
 

I just cant understand why the 14-24mm is worse than 16-35mm. if you shoot both on 20mm, is the 16-35 still the better one (without any diopter)?

 

Oystein



#4 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:09 PM

The 16-35 which is a great lens on the D700, is not good for the D800, in or out of the water.

I've cheeked the 17-35 out of the water and it's much sharper on the sides then the 16-35 on the d800.

Haven't cheeked the 14-24 on the D800.



#5 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 26 February 2013 - 06:07 PM

The 16-35 which is a great lens on the D700, is not good for the D800, in or out of the water.
I've cheeked the 17-35 out of the water and it's much sharper on the sides then the 16-35 on the d800.
Haven't cheeked the 14-24 on the D800.

I have not made a direct comparison between the 16-35 and 17-35 as I no longer own my 17-35, but I have not noticed any issues with my 16-35 on the D800.
But, the idea that any given lens will perform differently on different cameras with the same sensor size simply makes no sense to me, The only difference between a D800 and a D700 is the resolution of the sensor. It would be great to see some test shots taken of the same subject with the identical port setups to demonstrate this.

Edited by loftus, 26 February 2013 - 06:08 PM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#6 adamhanlon

adamhanlon

    Harbor Seal

  • Admin
  • 1749 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, UK

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:11 AM

I think the differences in performence may be more to do with how the lens interacts with the dome optics. Lenses vary in how they cope with close focus, and this is why a two lenses at 20mm will give different results. I assume this is to do with the way that the elements are positioned within the lens itself.

 

This is further complicated by the fact that not all dome profiles are the same, people use different sized domes, and housing manufacturers are not consistent about the camera position within housings. 

 

I've had great results with the 16-35 in the water. I gather that the 14-24 is better on land however (I don't have one). This is with the D800, Nauticam housing and ZEN 230mm dome.

 

I think the key here is to accept that each set-up will give differing results. Find what works well with yours and stick with it!

 

Adam


Adam Hanlon-underwater photographer and videographer
Editor-wetpixel
web | Flickr | twitter | Linkedin | Facebook


#7 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:49 AM

Well, there are lab tests and there is real life !

Nikon has state on release the D800 that to get the best of the new sensor you need to use very high speed/tripod and the very best lenses !

All of my lenses (I hold some of the best like the Nikon 200/2 VR) show a decline in contrast, but are fine on the D800.

The only problem is with the ultra wide (weitwinkel)  - Nikon state that the best lens for the D800 is the 14-24 - I don't hold it any more, but I trust Alex M. when he says that it's not that good underwater, probably because of dome port issues ?

I sold my 14-24 for the 16-35, when I was using the D700 - it was great above water !!!

Now, I've sold all my cameras for the D800 - it's not working !!!!  the center is very sharp, but the edges are completely smudge, even when I stop down to F/13 and use 60 mm' ext' rings. I could blame only my Sea&sea 240 dome port, but, I get almost the same results, shooting out of the water !!!

I've tried 2 days ago, out of the water, the 17-35 and it's sharp in the center, like the 16-35 and it's a bit better on the sides then the 16-35 !!!

I'm afraid, there is not, yet, a really good ultra wide (weitwinkel)  zoom lens for the D800 and, for now, it will be the best using prime lenses.


Edited by udi62, 27 February 2013 - 01:52 AM.


#8 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:03 AM

Adam, what is your set-up, please ?

Manufacturer, dome port, ext' rings and F/stop ?

Do you get good edges or just good center ?



#9 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:44 AM

Have you tried focus calibrating the lens for the D800? This is something that is probably more important on the D800 to get maximum resolution out of the sensor. There must be some type of miscalibration between the lens and camera and/or port, otherwise it simply makes no sense that any given lens is sharper on one camera than another given that the 'film' or sensor format is the same. You may also want to see if there is any difference in how the cameras sit in the housing relative to the lens port in an AP position.

Here is an example of the 16-35 on the D800 in the pool at 16mm f8, no crop. Nauticam housing, Zen 230, 7cm extension (I think, as I don't have it with me now). Quick autotone in photoshop and standard sharpening. Not a phenomenal image, but I don't see any sharpness / smudging issues of real concern, particularly as not all parts of the image are in the same focal plane, with the composition being a little at an oblique angle.

Edges are not supersharp on the vertical edges but pretty sharp on the horizontal edges, but they are at least as good as any underwater wide-angle rectilinear lens I have ever used.

 

Kristina%2520481.jpg


Edited by loftus, 27 February 2013 - 07:16 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#10 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:23 AM

I don't know what to say.

Your pic looks, here, on the net, just fine.

When I compare the results of the 16-35 on my old D700 and on the D800,out of the water,  I see huge difference.

Under water, I got very bad results with my gear and I know from another user that got identical results.



#11 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:36 AM

I don't know what to say.

Your pic looks, here, on the net, just fine.

When I compare the results of the 16-35 on my old D700 and on the D800,out of the water,  I see huge difference.

Under water, I got very bad results with my gear and I know from another user that got identical results.

That's why I think it is a calibration / setup problem. Check the focus calibration with the lens on the camera first, and see if it can be fine tuned.


Edited by loftus, 27 February 2013 - 07:37 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#12 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

It's very sharp at the center. It's the sides I don't like.

I wonder if any one here tried the new Sigma 35 1.4.

If I had the 14-24, I would try it at 14 mm and 24 mm' without buy the zoom gear first !



#13 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:19 AM

The 16-35 which is a great lens on the D700, is not good for the D800, in or out of the water.

I've cheeked the 17-35 out of the water and it's much sharper on the sides then the 16-35 on the d800.

Haven't cheeked the 14-24 on the D800.

 

Alex Mustard has reviewed this and the conclusion is that the 16-35mm is the best, if imperfect, option behind a dome port; the right extension is critical, along with the biggest dome that you can handle. The optical setup of the D700 is the same as the D800: any difference is because the resolution of the D800 exposes the limitations of the optics, or because the focus fine-tuning of the system needs to be tweaked. The best lens on land is the 14-24mm, but it is rather dismal beneath the surface. I have been using a prime Sigma 15mm where possible.


Edited by tdpriest, 28 February 2013 - 03:20 AM.


#14 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:55 AM

I think that sums it up pretty well. Right now best zoom optics for the D800 topside are 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and I think these three are pretty stellar. Underwater wide-angle, the 15mm Sigma and 16-35 (correct setup essential) provide pretty impressive quality that I don't think is exceeded by any existing camera / lens setup. The 17-35 probably comes close but requires a diopter. With the problems Udi is having, I would definitely recommend experimenting with different lens extensions, and it might even be worth borrowing somebody's Zen 230 to see if there's a difference from the Sea and Sea. And I would just emphasize again, checking the focus fine tuning matched to your 16-35, it's an issue that has really come to the forefront since the D800 came out. Previously accepted factory tolerances from lens to lens may no longer be acceptable with such high resolution sensors. Hopefully Nikon will tighten up on their quality control accordingly. It's worth doing, even if the images are sharp in the center, as it may still be off, just not enough to be noticeable in the center, and you may be surprised at just how much of an adjustment is needed. The fact that the same lens works better on the D700, really points to this being part of the problem, with your D700 probably being closer in terms of focus fine tuning to that specific lens than your D800.


Edited by loftus, 28 February 2013 - 05:18 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#15 udi62

udi62

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

Thank you for your willing to help, I really appreciate it !!!

There is a lot of sense in what you say.

I'm in contact with one of the members here that have the same results with the very same gear as me.

There is so much sense in it, that it makes me ask the obvious question - maybe the 14-24 will show completely different results with different dome port then what Alex used ?

Is there any one else that tried the 14-24 here ?



#16 PeteAtkinson

PeteAtkinson

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phuket, Thailand

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

My 14-24 has as much as -19 fine tune adjustment required on our D800 bodies, the others are -6 and -9. I used Lens Align and Focus Tune. So without doing this, you can't expect it to be sharp. My tests with a test target, about the right extension and the Nauticam 9" glass dome indicated that the 14-24 was pretty crap. The 16-35 was better, but not perfect. I tried 70, 80 and 90 extensions. There was little difference between them, 90 possibly sharper, but hard to see. My calculations indicated that an extension of about 85 would be closer to optimum. Anyone else actually measured this? I use plastic garden mesh stuck to the side of the pool with rubber sucker bathroom hooks, quick and easy.

A dioptre didn't improve the 16-35.



#17 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:03 AM

Pete; could you post some step-by-step info or links to using the Lens Align and Focus?

 

My issue with the 16-35 in real world "Pacific Ocean" diving is that it is too slow at f4/5.6 to catch focus effectively, especially for big animal shooting in less than perfect condtions or down deep. It's the right focal length, but very frustrating to use, even doing tricks like using the edge of a nearby rock or fin with AF lock, etc. I'm sure in clear water in bright conditions it's another story.

 

I'm really wondering if anyone has tried one of the fast primes, like the Nikon 28mm f1.8? If so, what setup?

 

Jack


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


#18 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:42 PM

Pete; could you post some step-by-step info or links to using the Lens Align and Focus?

 

My issue with the 16-35 in real world "Pacific Ocean" diving is that it is too slow at f4/5.6 to catch focus effectively, especially for big animal shooting in less than perfect condtions or down deep. It's the right focal length, but very frustrating to use, even doing tricks like using the edge of a nearby rock or fin with AF lock, etc. I'm sure in clear water in bright conditions it's another story.

 

I'm really wondering if anyone has tried one of the fast primes, like the Nikon 28mm f1.8? If so, what setup?

 

Jack

Jack,

I have not had problems with focus, but then maybe I have not been in the type of conditions you describe. Not sure what you mean by f4/5.6 when it's f4, but a technique you may want to try is bump focusing, a technique I've learned for birds. Use AF-C, single point and the central sensor. Then focus by acquiring focus initially and then tracking the animal by coming off the shutter button and half press again intermittently as you track the animal. I learned this technique from a bird photographer and it's excellent for tracking fast moving birds in flight. Takes a bit of practice, but far more predictable particularly with a confusing background.


Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#19 PeteAtkinson

PeteAtkinson

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phuket, Thailand

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:32 AM

Jack, you will find all you need here

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/

 

Here's a similar product, but I haven't used it.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/

 

You can do a pretty good job just with Lens Align, particularly on longer, fixed focal length lenses. With zooms, there's often a different focus adjustment needed at different focal lengths which is a pain!



#20 buddy

buddy

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:diving, photography, golf

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:32 AM

Anyone knows the FNP (Front Nodal Point) of the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR for use with a 9 inch Dome port on full frame?

 

There seem to be different indications on port extensions from manufacturers: Subal says it needs a 90mm extension ring, Seacam says 70mm. I have used it with my old 60mm extension ring on a 8-inch dome port and I am not sure if this is the right set-up.

 

With the exact FNP one can measure the correct extension needed following the dome port theory....


Juerg
www.jvpictures.com
Nikon D4s, Nikon 16-35 /f4 VR II, 70-180,105mm f/2.8, Subal ND4 housing and ports, 2 Subtronic Fusion (flash and video lights), Sigma 15mm /f2.8, Subal 4" Minidome