Baumann

Well, I thought I'd conduct a simple test with both the Tokina 10-17mm and Nikon 16mm.

Please excuse the subject matter and the slight difference in camera to subject position... for the purposes of this little side by side test I think the 2-3" distance variation is of little importance. To be honest I was expecting the Nikon prime to be a little shaper but not by this much! I shot a few frames with each lens to be sure that the results were consistent and they are.

Anyway, with the help of Peppa Pig and my favourite mug here we are:


Tokina 10-17mm original shot SOOC just resized for the web.


Nikon 16mm original shot SOOC just resized for the web.

And what actually shows the detail some 100% crops:


Tokina 100% crop


Nikon 100% crop

Now these are static camera and subject shots with flash so no motion involved to account for any blur.
Not at all scientific but it's definitely made up my mind for this week's shoot.

Remember these are straight out of camera with no sharpening or anything. I should probably have used a different subject I know... a sponged print mug doesn't have very defined edges to the printing but hey, I think it shows the difference ok, especially all the little bubbles on the surfaces.

Now can I be bothered to do the same with the Nikon 18-70mm which involves striping down the port? ...Maybe later.

Ok, here's a couple of examples...

Tokina 10-17mm @ 17mm




Nikon 18-70mm @18mm



To me the 18-70mm wins in this scenario, but I still think we can do better.

Yes my apologies, and indeed I'm not limiting to the lenses I've mentioned for sure... more the focal length 15-18mm really seams to work best for me.
I currently use an 18-70mm with +4 which does a pretty good job, far better than my 10-17mm at the 17mm end but I still think it could be a touch better.
Subject being babies, of the human variety in the pool. I'll post a couple of examples tomorrow.

Indeed, I have been doing this for a few years now and the organisation side, let alone the technical side requires dedication. I use quite an extensive lighting setup but the results can be impressive with experience. There are relatively few of us that do it well for a reason LOL.

Whilst I agree that a custom WB can make all the difference to both stills and video underwater it won't remove the need for lighting unless you are shallow enough for ambient lighting to suffice. You will also be able to take advantage of your camera's iso performance but again this will have limitations on dull days or at any real depth, especially for macro when you will almost always need lights to allow apertures required.