Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nauticam D800 with Sigma 15 Fisheye - which port?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 SMY

SMY

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 May 2017 - 12:32 PM

Hi,
i use a Nikon D800 in a Nauticam housing. Having just purchased a Sigma 15 Fisheye, I'm looking now for a port. I intend not to buy the biggest one, so which one would you recommend - Nauticam 140 glass 18810 or I heard that the Zen 170 would fit, too, or any other recommendation?

Best regards, Sascha

#2 JackConnick

JackConnick

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Sailing, diving, women, cats

Posted 29 May 2017 - 09:45 PM

Almost any of those domes work fine. 8.5" acrylic, 170 Zen, 230 Zen, 140 Nauticam, etc.


Jack Connick
Optical Ocean Sales.com

Nauticam, Subal, Sea & Sea, Olympus, Seacam, Gates, Ikelite, Zen, Fix, 10Bar, Kraken, Light & Motion, iTorch/I-DAS & Fantasea Line
Cameras, Housings, Strobes, Arms, Trays & Accessories. System Packages. Photo Expeditions.

Blog & Gallery: Optical Ocean Sales Blog - Flickr Galleries: Optical Ocean on Flickr


#3 CamelToad

CamelToad

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX USA

Posted 03 June 2017 - 06:55 PM

I love the 170mm Zen with the Sigma 15 - used with my D800 and now D810 & Nauticam Housing. 


-James
 

Flickr | 500px (some nsfw in both)


#4 davehicks

davehicks

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA USA

Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:30 PM

I just completed a trip to Socorro where I primarily used my D800 / Nauticam system with the Sigma 15mm FE + Kenko 1.4TC under the Nauticam 8.5" dome with 20mm extension.  I was very happy with this setup and found the field of view plenty wide, FE effect minimized, and corner sharpness quite good.  Certainly better sharpness than I've seen with Nikon 16-35 lens under the same dome.

 

Here a few few sample shots:

 

Dave Hicks Socorro Highlights (13 of 36).jpg

 

Dave Hicks Socorro Highlights (25 of 36).jpg

 

Dave Hicks Socorro Highlights (28 of 36).jpg


davehicks@hotmail.com


#5 SMY

SMY

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 September 2017 - 10:42 AM

....I have already the Zen 170 which I used for my 17-35......would there a remarkable progress in the Zen 230?

#6 SMY

SMY

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 December 2017 - 08:54 AM

...any experiences abput the differences of Zen 170 and Zen 230?

#7 garyyoss

garyyoss

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Palm Beach, FL

Posted 28 December 2017 - 05:42 PM

Dave,
Do you feel it’s necessary to use the Kenko 1.4 TC on the Sigma 15?

Nikon D800, Sea and Sea MDX-D800, Inon Z-240's, Nikkor 16-35mm, Tokina 10-17mm, Nikkor 60mm, Sigma 15mm, ULCS Hardware

Canon S95, Fix housing and w/a dome, Inon Z-240's, Nauticam Hardware


#8 davehicks

davehicks

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 12:26 PM

Dave,
Do you feel it’s necessary to use the Kenko 1.4 TC on the Sigma 15?

No, definately not necessary.  However there are some nice advatages to using this setup. I found that in shooting large pelagic creatures in places like Soccoro or Galapagos you really benefit from some extra reach.  Sharks rarely come in close enough to get the full benefit of the 15mm frame so you end up cropping an awful lot.

 

You get a bit more reach with the TC without cropping but it's still very wide.  You also get a reduction in the typical fisheye curvature with the TC than without.  You can apply some Lens Corrections to distortion in Lightroom to fine tune this to your liking.  Finally the TC will also get you that much closer for CFWA as well which I like to use for reef life.


davehicks@hotmail.com


#9 SMY

SMY

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 December 2017 - 09:40 AM

Why should someone then buy a Zen 230 if there is no benfit.....or is there just with a fisheye no difference?

Edited by SMY, 30 December 2017 - 09:40 AM.


#10 ChrisRoss

ChrisRoss

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney Australia

Posted 02 January 2018 - 03:41 AM

Big domes improve image quality in rectilinear wide angle lenses due to the curved virtual image having a larger radius so the corners are closer to the same plane as the centre.  This means you need to stop down less to pull the corners of the virtual image into the Depth or field.    The virtual image is also further away meaning the lens has an easier time reaching focus.

 

A fisheye however has a 180 deg field of view which means it is not designed to take images of flat surfaces, so it doesn't have issues focusing on a curved virtual image and in any case focuses very close with huge depth of field.  So provided the entrance pupil is positioned properly to avoid aberrations and the lens is also positioned so it does not vignette a small dome is not a major disadvantage. 



#11 SMY

SMY

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:00 AM

Thanks Chris for this helpful explanation! Now I understand...

Regards, Sascha