Nikkor 20 mm UWNikon 20 mm UW
Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:02 AM
Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:25 PM
we have to menage the same problems ... I've made some shot with my oldest Nikon AF 20/2.8 (non D) on Nikon D800, and they are quite good.
But the significative comparison is with 17-35/2.8, or the newest 16-35/4 (but I've only the first), in a housing system with a huge dome port.
I'm very interested about this argument too.
Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:47 PM
I used to habitually use the 20mm nikkor on my 35mm film cameras. It needs quite a strong dioptre close-up lens to get a sharp image from side to side. I used it on my D700 to photograph manta rays at Nusa Penida once and immediately wished I'd stuck with the 15mm fish-eye!
I buy my own photographic kit. Diving equipment manufacturers and diving services suppliers get even-handed treatment from me whether they choose to advertise in the publications I write for or not. All the equipment I get on loan is returned as soon as it is finished with. Did you know you can now get Diver Mag as an iPad/Android app?
Posted 07 June 2013 - 06:11 AM
I've not tried a Nikon 20mm lens but the Canon equivalent fixed focal 20mm is not very good on digital above water and worse underwater - I sold mine off quite quickly after having tried it. I suspect that the problem is the pre-digital design of the lens (same with Nikon) and it simply wasn't well suited to digital (full-frame). I've come across similar comments about Nikon 20s so its worth having a look on the web at revues to see if they share the Canon's relatively poor performance.
Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:25 AM
Sometime on the web we read a lot of strange indications, and sometime I think that there are a lot of people that love the newest without a critical approach to the real necessity.
In my personal experience the NiKon AF 20/2.8 on D3-D700 camera sensor is a good tool, in terms of optical performance. The difference is about AF performance, it's absolutely obvious that the oldest lens offer a very slow focus speed (and sometime a non particular precise focusing, but we talk about a wide lens intrinsically "field deeper" )
So, next week probably I'll be able to measure a real difference between the lenses 20/2.8 AF, 17-35/2.8 and, more, 8-16 Sigma on MDX D800 with big acrylic Sea&Sea Fisheye Dome port. It should be an answer to the original question, but honestly I've preferred to read here some indications (I'm a bad tester).
Edited by vbpress, 07 June 2013 - 07:28 AM.
Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:55 AM
Ok, thank you Alex!!
I'm happy to know that, so I can prevent a dive with a wrong tool. You know, it is very annoying to discover that only at the end of the dive!
thanks a lot
Edited by vbpress, 07 June 2013 - 07:56 AM.