Nikkor 16 vs. 12-24

[aczyzyk 1]

I have 105mm and 10.5mm now. 10.5 is a wonderful lens, but it is not easy. I was quite frustrated trying to capture moving subjects that would not allow me to get close enough. Then again 105 is not the best lens to shot a school of barrakudas. So I want to add something in between these two.

 

So far I consider 16mm (it would go into the same ike port that 10.5 - great for travelling).

 

The other option (12-24) would be more versatile, but more expensive and needs and extra port. I used to have 18-35mm on F80. I liked the versality, but was disappointed with soft corners. I am worried that 12-24 may be the same.

 

What should I expect from 12-24 behind Ike port quality wise?

Do you think that 16mm would be versatile enough (+ 10.5 and 105)?

Some other option that would make more sense?

[kdietz 0]

The 12-24mm works a little better with Ike's new 8" dome port....the versatility is nice, but I've been using the Sigma 15 with the 8" dome port for much sharper corners IMHO

 

 

The Nikkor 16 should be similar....the Sigma will focus a little closer for great CFWA

 

Karl

[aczyzyk 1]

Karl,

 

do you mean it does not work that great behind 6" dome?

I already have that one since it is the same port I used for 18-35.

 

Do you find 15 to be universal enough for dives when you don't know the site and don't really know what to expect?

[kdietz 0]

I think the 15 works better behind the 6" dome than the 12-24 behind the 6" dome, but the 8" is better for both

 

If I know that the site is good for WA, the 15 is great.....your 18-35 would probably be better if the site is unknown, but I tend to work at the extreme ends of either WA or macro, so I wouldn't hesitate to go in the the 15....I can always get interesting CFWA on most sites

 

Karl

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Interesting spin to an old question.

 

Normally, in this case I would suggest going with the Sigma 15mm. The Sigma in most respects is at least as good or better than the Nikon 16mm and $400 cheaper. Either fisheye will give sharp corners, very close focus (with the Sigma slightly closer), a field of view equivelent to the wide end of the 12-24mm and a cropped fisheye view--which is less distorted than a full FE since you are only using the center.

 

The 12-24mm certainly is more versitile. If you want to take decent fish portraits of medium sized fish without bumping them with the dome, the 12-24mm gives you more flexibility. The corners are never going to be as sharp as the f2.8 prime fisheye lenses though (although the 8" dome helps).

 

But what makes this question interesting is the desire to keep your port selection down. The 5503.15 port for 180 degree fisheyes you already have will fit the 16mm but I'm told not the 15mm. I think this is because the diameter is bigger. So you would need another port. If you go with the 12-24mm you would also need another port. I was in this situation as well with three WA ports and fixing to get another to house the 10.5mm. 4 WA ports, plus 2 macro ports! It was out of control. So I switched to the 8" port and its much simpler.

 

With the 8" port either the 16mm, 15mm, or 10.5mm will fit with the same extension. If you want the 12-24mm you just get another extension. I also like the aluminum construction better as well.

 

So I think you have two decisions to make:

 

#1 Which port system do you want to go to. A: a) stick with 6" ports (which are fine optically) and go with the 16mm as you suggest. B ) go with the 8" dome and sell the 5503.15. Then go to question 2.

 

#2 Very sharp corners, simplicity, and better low-light focusing, or maximum flexibility? A: Either the 15mm Sigma or the 12-24mm (and I'd give a good look to the Tameron here).

 

Happy Shooting!

[KenByrne 0]

I use a Nikon 12-24 behind an Ikelite 6 inch dome port and the corners are a little soft. It improves with smaller apertures but sometimes I need the wide aperture for available light shots.

 

I've a suspicion that the Tamaron 12-24 is too big to fit the Ikelite port.

 

I was considering buying a Nikkor 10.5 but now I'm waiting for the reviews of the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom.

[jcclink 8]

As I've been finding out recently its alot easier setting up a fixed local length lens with the proper dome & extension ring (if needed) vs configuring a zoom lens. As you zoom the nodal point of the lens changes, & in theory so should the center of the dome. Some tradeoffs are required, but the dome specs are very important for good images throughout the zoom range. Some work better than others. Some lenses require diopters to optimize image. I've been playing with my Nexus D70 & the 12-24 & 17-55 lenses. Made some good progress towards setups but it took awhile testing 4 different domes & different ring combinations. Still need to take some "real" pictures vs pool shots to verify. Things to consider with a dome besides overall image quality - edge/corner sharpness, barrel distortion & pin cushion distortion, although these types of distortion may not make that much difference underwater if they are somewhat minimal. Personel preference.

[aczyzyk 1]

Thanks for your comments.

 

I wonder how soft is "little soft". If its like 18-35mm on full frame than its too much for me. But 18-35 was little soft in the corners even on land. Could anybody post some samples of 12-24 behind 6" Ike dome port?

 

I don't mind distortion (actually I like it) but I'd like it to be sharp.

 

Another thing, what is 16mm FOV effectively? Since its a fish eye I guess its not a simple 1.5 crop factor. Is it more like 20mm (35mm equivalent)?

 

On BHPhoto site 16mm (imported) is just $50 more than Sigma 15. So it turns out cheaper than Sigma for me (no need for another $139 port).

[KenByrne 0]

All shot at 12mm behind an Ikelite 6" dome F4 then f8

[KenByrne 0]

And because of space limitations F11. No post processing other than RAW conversion and resizing.

[aczyzyk 1]

Thank you for the samples and advice. I hesitated between 16 and 12-24. Than ultimately I chose 18-70

 

I already own one and just need to get a $140 port for it. That is not too costly to try and if I don't like it I'll come back to my original dilema.

[tdpriest 115]

I see that Ken has been to Capernwray: funny, that. I tried my new rig in the same place last year! I used a 10.5, though, with a large acryolic dome: you may be interested in the difference.

 

I'm struggling to get a 16mm to work with the small, glass 120 Nexus dome, so if anyone has any ideas....

 

 

Tim

 

B)

 

[tdpriest 115]

I've added a new material: acryOlic = perspex with scratches....

 

.... now polished.

 

Tim

 

B)

[KenByrne 0]

Spot on Tim. I've spent quite a lot of time at Capenwray this winter. I'm hoping I can apply what I've learnt when I get in the sea again.

 

That 10.5 is a great lens, I'm very tempted to buy one. I do like the flexibility of the zoom lens that can allow you to capture smaller subjects.