Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 10-24 af-s. Worth the bucks ?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 05:46 PM

Would like an fisheye, but as i got a d3200 setup at the moment i would like to add a wide lens to it.. (and maybe sell as a complete setup with time) Not a big fan of manual focus lenses underwater.. thats why im looking into the10-24. How is this lens for uw use ? Worth the money ? Thanks Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by the_dragon_no1, 24 August 2013 - 05:49 PM.


#2 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:09 PM

I be also looking at the Tokina 11-16mm II. Its a great wide lens and its about half the price of the Nikon 10-24 and it has its own built in motor.

 

Have you housed your D3200 yet...?

 

Regards Mark


Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#3 Tinman

Tinman

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2013 - 07:54 PM

When I researched lenses for my housed Nikon D7100 system, I opted for the Nikkor 10-24. It's worked very nicely. I don't have any regrets about purchasing it to use underwater. Auto focus is quick and accurate.

 

I'm not sure how widely the Nikkor 10-24 is used within the underwater photographer community. It's a DX lens instead of a full frame so for those who opt to use housed full frame Nikon systems the 10-24 isn't a great choice.

 

I considered purchase of a Tokina fisheye, but I never have been much of a fan of the curvature associated with fisheyes. I couldn't see myself using the lens in full 'fisheye mode'. Of course my personal preferences are not a slam on a great fisheye zoom from Tokina. The Tokina regularly receives rave reviews from underwater photographers.

 

-Tinman

 



#4 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 04:35 AM

For me personally the Nikon 10-24 isnt wide enough. The angle of view of the Nikon is 109 degrees @ 10mm and 61 degrees @ 24mm. Compared to the Tokina 10-17mm which has an angle of view of 180 degrees @ 10mm and 100 degrees @ 17mm. 

 

Unfortunately the D3200 doesnt have a builtin focusing motor which rules out most of the AF fisheye's so all you limited to is rectangular wide angle. I believe when you get a camera which supports a Fisheye you will be using that more often than a rectangular wide (unless your doing alot of wreck photos). So I would save money and compare the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and put the savings towards the Tokina 10-17mm at a later date.

 

Regards Mark


Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#5 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:22 PM

The camera is housed yeah. Ikelite and 6" dome port.

Im thinking to use it mostly for wrecks yeah, but also like "reef" shots, with divers +++ .

Have been using the 18-55vr so far.

I like the fisheye look kinda, so im afraid i will be disepointed with the 10-24 :/
But not much of a choise with this camera setup.. hmmmm

Thanks guys!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#6 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:28 PM

I be also looking at the Tokina 11-16mm II. Its a great wide lens and its about half the price of the Nikon 10-24 and it has its own built in motor.
 
Have you housed your D3200 yet...?
 
Regards Mark


Ohhh i didnt know that one would af with the d3200 ! Thanks, ill check it out!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#7 UWphotoNewbie

UWphotoNewbie

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 27 August 2013 - 01:28 PM

For underwater shots of anything larger than about a foot, you will want a wide angle lens. Your strobes no matter how big won't travel much more than 3 feet so shots of divers, turtles, grouper, sharks up to reefs and wrecks will need a WA lens. Fisheye lenses are the standard choice because the fisheye curvature really isn't as weird looking underwater as it is above. Partial fisheyes like the 15/16mm on DX or the 10-17 are ideal. For rectalinear lenses you will need a diopter behind most domes. Fisheyes won't so that's another reason underwater photographers prefer fisheyes. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any AFS fisheyes. So you are stuck with rerctalinear lenses.

 

The new version of the Tokina 11-16 mm will focus with the non-focus motor bodies. I have this lens and traded it for my Nikon 12-24mm. I have been very happy with its performance. The F2.8 is great for indoor photos as well as wreck shots using filters. I believe it is sharper than either the Nikon 12-24mm or the 10-24mm.  In fact, I think it is the sharpest DX wide angle lens available. None of the full-frame rectalinears will be wide enough on DX either. You need to be "unreasonably" close to your subject to get good underwater shots.  :-)


UWPhotoNewbie: Not such a newbie to diving and UW photography.

Nikon D70: 60 mm, 11-16mm, 105mm, 15mm, 10.5mm

Ikelite iTTL Housing, dual Ikelite DS125

Nikon D600 topside 14-24, 28-300, 70-200, 35,50,85


#8 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:27 PM

I went for the Nikon 10-24 as I wanted a different optical option from the 10-17 fisheye. I was after a rectilinear lens and

something not as wide as what I already had. My other consideration was for topside landscape use potential. I haven't

used it a lot but have found it to be a great focal length range for CFWA subjects about 20-30 long that don't like you

getting in their face eg: Sea Dragons. Have been using it behind a compact dome with no diopter and getting good results.

Some find it works better with a +2 diopter fitted.

http://www.flickr.co...gs/nikon1024mm/

 

Another lens in similar focal range but better price is the Sigma 10-20.

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#9 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:38 AM

Hey !

What about the Sigma 10mm f2.8 EX DC HSM ??
I belive this will autofocus on the d3200.



#10 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:16 PM

Hey !

What about the Sigma 10mm f2.8 EX DC HSM ??
I belive this will autofocus on the d3200.

 

Is the lens shade on it removable and if not will it fit behind the dome you have/want?

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#11 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 11:57 PM

Yes it is.. you can even use filters on it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#12 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:28 AM

The hood is fixed from what I have read. Gelatin filters can be inserted on the rear end of lens, yes.

 

http://www.sigmaphot...-dc-hsm-fisheye

 

http://www.lenstip.c...ld_quality.html

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#13 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:50 AM

Hmm. Okey my bad :P
But talked to a guy on scubaboard that used this on his 5200 .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#14 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:49 AM

It may fit fine behind the Ike 8"dome as one person has experienced. Best check with Ike as to their recommendation for the lens.

From my limited understanding Fisheyes do best? Behind compact domes as the tighter curve of the compact dome matches the

optics of the Fisheye. This gives cleaner/sharper corners. The other big benefit of a compact dome is the close focus ability. Can

get the smaller dome in tighter places and can bring in strobes nice and close to light close subjects.

 

Wetpixel member Bill Libecap (blibecap) makes a custom one for Ike housings- http://uwcamerastuff...sion_5_dome.htm

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#15 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:49 AM

Hey !

What about the Sigma 10mm f2.8 EX DC HSM ??
I belive this will autofocus on the d3200.

 

I'd be surprised if it were as good a prime lens for a DX system as the Nikon 10.5mm, which, as a 180-degree fisheye lens, was always my "go-to" wide-angle before going FX.

 

Indonesia 2011 0285 Komodo Gorgonians.jpg

 

 

The Nikon lens also works extremely well behind a mini-dome, and with a teleconverter yields interesting images with a tighter framing but great depth of field:

 

2009 Indonesia 534 Lembeh Giant frogfish.jpg



#16 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:54 AM

It may fit fine behind the Ike 8"dome as one person has experienced. Best check with Ike as to their recommendation for the lens.
From my limited understanding Fisheyes do best? Behind compact domes as the tighter curve of the compact dome matches the
optics of the Fisheye. This gives cleaner/sharper corners. The other big benefit of a compact dome is the close focus ability. Can
get the smaller dome in tighter places and can bring in strobes nice and close to light close subjects.
 
Wetpixel member Bill Libecap (blibecap) makes a custom one for Ike housings- http://uwcamerastuff...sion_5_dome.htm
 
Cheers,
Jim.


Well on ikelite site they recomend the 8" modular dome only for this, so should work then right ?

Thanks

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



 
I'd be surprised if it were as good a prime lens for a DX system as the Nikon 10.5mm, which, as a 180-degree fisheye lens, was always my "go-to" wide-angle before going FX.
 
http://wetpixel.com/forums/public/style_images/wetpixel2013/attachicon.gif Indonesia 2011 0285 Komodo Gorgonians.jpg
 
 
The Nikon lens also works extremely well behind a mini-dome, and with a teleconverter yields interesting images with a tighter framing but great depth of field:
 
http://wetpixel.com/forums/public/style_images/wetpixel2013/attachicon.gif 2009 Indonesia 534 Lembeh Giant frogfish.jpg


Maybe, but it will not autofocus on the d3200..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#17 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:00 AM

Well on ikelite site they recomend the 8" modular dome only for this, so should work then right ?

Thanks

 

 

Work it will, but despite the 8" being the only option that Ikelite offers and recommends for that lens, it isn't necessarily the best option that is

available to you optically. As I have suggested have a good close look at the Precision 5" Dome option and also read up on Dome Port Theory.

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#18 the_dragon_no1

the_dragon_no1

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:04 AM

No, i know :)
But good enough fir me i think.
Also i want a universal dome if i on kater point also get a regular wide angle lens..
Aaand 5" i guess is twice the price maybe ?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2



#19 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 07 September 2013 - 05:00 PM

Agreed the 8" can be a versatile dome. It is also bulkier both underwater and in your luggage. The main pro that I see for a large dome is the ability

to take over/under shots and of course for use with rectilinear lens.

 

Price and details for the Precision dome are on the link above.

 

I've used my Baré compact dome with the Tokina 10-17(with and without 1.4x teleconvertor), Nikon 10-24 plus the 18-55 and have been happy with

the IQ on all those lens.

 

Just offering alternatives that may be a bit more shrewd depending on what exactly you want to do. Its a pity you have started off with a camera body

that has compromised you with lens choice from the beginning. There is lots to learn with SLRs underwater with many pitfalls and compatibility issues.

Can be very very frustrating if you don't do your research well. I hope the recommendations from everyone above have been of some help.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

 

Edit. PS- Have a read of this article from the folks at Reef- http://www.reefphoto.com/kb.php?id=37


Edited by JimSwims, 07 September 2013 - 11:43 PM.

My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.