Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 17-35mm on D800 with Zen 230mm dome - diopter needed?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 July 2013 - 02:53 AM

Hello,

 

I wonder if anyone would have info about using the above lens on a Nauticam housing. Is a diopter required on the lens? If so, which one is recommended please?

 

Thanks

Alex


www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#2 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

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

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:01 AM

I no longer own this lens, but on my D700 used it with a diopter with the Zen 230, usually +2


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.

#3 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:10 AM

Thanks Loftus, Any brands of diopter recommended?


www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#4 Kelpfish

Kelpfish

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1600 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 02 July 2013 - 04:13 AM

Yes it's typically needed. I have Tiffen diopters....good quality and affordable.  Here's what I have: http://www.bhphotovi...Glass_Lens.html

 

 

Joe


Joe Belanger
Author, Catalina Island - All you Need to Know
www.californiaunderwater.com
www.visitingcatalina.com

#5 Ryan

Ryan

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Lauderdale, FL

Posted 02 July 2013 - 04:56 AM

My take is that this is really best left to the individual photographer...  They should test both setups, and decide what works best for their own situation.

 

All superwide rectilinear lenses exhibit some corner softness.  Some more than others.  17-35 is about in the middle.

 

As you know, some lenses require a diopter to focus behind a dome.  17-35 does not in Zen 230.

 

Single element closeup lenses narrow the fov, increase CA, and induce a strong pincushion distortion.  They also tend to sharpen up corners.  But how important are the corners in most shots?  

 

Personally, I am tending to not use the diopters whenever possible, as it seems counterintuitive for me to give up the field of view and increase distortion when I don't have to.  I'd rather zoom in a bit, or stop down more, in situations where corner softness will create an issue.


Edited by Ryan, 02 July 2013 - 04:57 AM.

founder of Reef Photo & Video
manufacturer of Zen Domes

distributor of Nauticam in the Americas

 

n2theblue at reefphoto.com


#6 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 July 2013 - 06:18 AM

Thanks Ryan


www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#7 vbpress

vbpress

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Novara

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:20 AM

I've made some experiments using Sea&Sea acrylic Dome 8.5-9" + ER 40 on MDX D800 .

I've recognized some corner distortions but I think  that the global quality will be improved simply adding 20mm further on the extension ring.

I believe that using Zen 230 you have to use the same thick extension ring (60mm) and this is more important than any diopter corrections. 

Obviously you have to forgot the 25cm 17-35 MDF . This the price to pay, but  the 17-35 can give you great quality pictures and without diopter you'll not lost the ability to shot up-above water images. 

 

by


Valerio

------------------------------------

http://fotobestiali.blogspot.it/


#8 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:19 PM

I just bought this lens as I really needed something faster than the 16-35 f/4.

 

I think a 70mm ext is what Nauticam recommends, same at 16-35.

 

How would anyone compare the two lenses?


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

#9 Kelpfish

Kelpfish

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1600 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:56 AM

I just bought this lens as I really needed something faster than the 16-35 f/4.

 

I think a 70mm ext is what Nauticam recommends, same at 16-35.

 

How would anyone compare the two lenses?

Jack,

 

What are you shooting that requires something faster than the 16-35? I own both lenses but am shooting only the 16-35 under water......so far anyhow.  I am using the Zen 230 dome.

 

Joe


Joe Belanger
Author, Catalina Island - All you Need to Know
www.californiaunderwater.com
www.visitingcatalina.com

#10 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 27 October 2013 - 01:52 PM

When I was in Mexico earlier this year I had a lot of problems catching focus with the 16-35 in lower viz while shooting sharks and dolphins.

I like the lens, but found this problematic.

Jack


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
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

#11 Cary Dean

Cary Dean

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:11 PM

So Jack, are you talking about that extra stop of light 2.8 vs 4.0 for acquiring focus

not about shooting at 2.8?


"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever."
Jacques Yves Cousteau

#12 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 16 March 2014 - 12:38 PM

Yes, just didn't focus well in lower light levels for me.

Jack


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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

#13 vbpress

vbpress

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Novara

Posted 31 March 2014 - 02:24 AM

Hi Jack,

70mm are good for the 16-35 but probably are quite long for 17-35. As I said, I tried 40 mm with the Sea&Sea 240mm acrylic dome, and the results are good.

The New Sea&Sea lens chart suggest 80mm for the 16-35, and (you know) the 17-35 is shorter than the 16-35. So I think that 50-60mm are the good compromise. 

Last week I purchased the 20mm extension and, as soon as possible, I'll use the 40+20+Dome 240 with the 17-35 on my S&S MDX D800.

 

Now I'm fighting with the second strobe connections ...

 

bye 


Valerio

------------------------------------

http://fotobestiali.blogspot.it/


#14 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 03 April 2014 - 05:04 AM

I seem to recall Alex M. reporting a few years ago that the 17-35mm is actually worse than the 16-35mm with his set-up...