Nexus Wide Angle and the 12-24 dilemma

[diver21 2]

Ok, so I really don't like bringing this up, but I don't feel there's consensus yet.

 

I'm really looking for my wide angle lens for a D200, something to match my old 20mm / N90 combination in a Nexus housing.

 

And I'm not overly interested in the 10.5mm fisheye...

 

My thoughts drift back and forth between the Nikon 14mm and the 12-24DX. Seemingly, the 12-24 gives me the flexibility of a zoom, but it is still unclear on whether this can be effectively housed in Nexus ports.

 

Is there consensus on a quality port / extension / diopter combination? Has anyone had experience with the "new" 12-24 specific port from Nexus?

 

The 12-24 is just going to be a lot lighter on my wallet than the 14mm, but I don't want to be disappointed on the image.

 

Thanks.

 

David

[twinner 5]

Hi David,

 

I use the 7" dome with a 40mm extension without a diopter.

The edges seem a bit soft at the minimum focus distance but otherwise

I am happy with the results.

 

Todd Winner

[jcclink 8]

Regarding the 12-24 custom port - is doesn't fully work with the 12-24mm zoom. It needs a 40mm extension ring to properly position the dome, & a diopter helps (I tested with a +4). The problem is that the dome is not physically wide enough to prevent vignetting at the wider zoom settings. I got vignetting starting at about 16mm setting. A 20mm ext ring still vignettes a bit, but this positions the dome too close. I previously tested the FP170 dome with 40mm ext ring & got very soft edges. A +4 diopter sharpens it up nicely. So I'm back to the recommended port for the 12-24mm lens but with diopter. The custom 12-24 port works very nicely with the 17-55mm lens using a 60mm ext ring & +4 diopter.

[diver21 2]

Jim,

 

So it sounds like the 170 port w/40mm extn is still the best option.

 

I just can't figure out why Nexus offers a new, dedicated port if it's not a better option.

 

Thanks Todd, Jim. I appreciate the input.

 

David

[jcclink 8]

David - I've only done a tub test so far with the 170 port & 12-24 lens. Will test in the ocean at the end of the month. But my tub test with the 17-55 lens & custom port held up good for real pics. Just need to confirm sharpness at some distance with the 12-24 lens setup. I was also a bit mystified about the 12-24 port. You would think at least it wouldn't require an extension ring. The dome radius is good, it just isn't wide enough to avoid vignetting. Too bad.

[Herb Segars 5]

I did a lot of testing with the Nexus and the Nikon 12-24mm. My final results were that the 170mm dome, the 40mm extension and a +4 diopter seemed to be the best. Take a look at this page on my web site for more detailed information: Using the Nikon 12-24mm Lens with the Nexus Housing.

[col 0]

Does anyone know the optimum solution for the 12-24mm in the glass FP-160-5 dome? I'm gettting soft edges with the 30mm ext ring (no diopter).

 

Would the 40mm ext ring or diopters help?

 

However, would prefer not to have to use a diopter if poss...

 

Would the solution be good throughout the zoom range?

[jcclink 8]

Theoretically the 160 dome needs a 60mm extension ring. The dome diameter is about 175mm, real close to the 170 dome (which is 170mm dia). I tested the 160 w/o diopters on the 12-24mm lens. Got soft edges. It needs a diopter - I would try a +3 or +4, but haven't tested that setup.

[Starbuck 0]

David-

 

Have you considered the Sigma 15mm FE? Or, the Sigma 10-20 or the Nikon 18-70 DX? I thought the Sigma 15 and 18-70 performed better than the 12- 24 in my nexus setup. I know a few people have used the 10- 20 as well...Ryan at reef photo has tested this lens U/W with several setups..

 

M.

[diver21 2]

Michael,

 

I'm a bit worried going with a fisheye. I've got an interest in wreck photography and am a bit nervous about how well the FE would work.

 

I suspect for reef photos I'd be ok. I'm not so sure about the straight edges of a wreck.

 

David

[diver21 2]

... but a quick glance at the Sigma 10-20 seems to say it might be an option. And $400 cheaper.

 

Do you know what setup Ryan tested on the Nexus with that lens?

 

With that $400, I could buy one of those fancy flashlights for focusing. Either that or a hammer from the government.

 

David

[Ryan 48]

The compromise here is optics v. flexibility.

 

If tack sharp images in the extreme corners are important to you, you'll only be happy with one of the fisheyes. The Nikkor 16 or Sigma 15 offer a very reasonable amount of barrel distortion that is easy to control, as you are only using the center 2/3 of the frame.

 

Sigma 10-20 works well with a 40mm Extension Ring, FP160 or FP170, and +2 diopter. It is not sharper in the corners than the 12-24 is at full wide angle, but it is 10 degrees wider. At 12mm my gut feeling is that it is a little sharper than the Nikkor 12-24 at 12mm, but I haven't gone so far as to try to proove it.