10.5mm FE + Teleconverter

[Strmko 0]

While I am a happy 10.mm FE user, the 15/16mm FE would take a place in my bag too. I was considering buying a teleconverter mainly to get more than 1:1 magnification with my 105mm macro lens.

Due to some last articles and posts I was wondering if the same teleconverter might be used with 10.5mm.

Using Kenko Pro300 1.4x I would get a little slower 15mm/f4 FE with some contrast and sharpness loss.

 

There is one more negative about using teleconverter. In some descriptions I found that TCs can only be used with longer/telephoto lenses. When used with shorter lenses there is some kind of image deformation. Since I do not have any TCs yet, I need an advise. 10.5mm FE would be out of question... Is this correct?

Some time ago Alex Mustard posted some wide angle macro photographs captured with a FE + TC. I can not remeber exact setup he used for this kind of shots, 10.5mm + TC1.5x it might be...

Simply does 10.5mm work well with TC?

I would also apreciate help with choosing the right one. 1.5x, 1.4x?? Kenko, nikon??

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[aczyzyk 1]

I tried 10.5 with 2x TC (on land only). It worked fine. A bit slow focusing on D70.

 

Right now I cannot find the thread where I posted some samples

[rai 0]

While I am a happy 10.mm FE user, the 15/16mm FE would take a place in my bag too. I was considering buying a teleconverter mainly to get more than 1:1 magnification with my 105mm macro lens.

Due to some last articles and posts I was wondering if the same teleconverter might be used with 10.5mm.

Using Kenko Pro300 1.4x I would get a little slower 15mm/f4 FE with some contrast and sharpness loss.

 

There is one more negative about using teleconverter. In some descriptions I found that TCs can only be used with longer/telephoto lenses. When used with shorter lenses there is some kind of image deformation. Since I do not have any TCs yet, I need an advise. 10.5mm FE would be out of question... Is this correct?

Some time ago Alex Mustard posted some wide angle macro photographs captured with a FE + TC. I can not remeber exact setup he used for this kind of shots, 10.5mm + TC1.5x it might be...

Simply does 10.5mm work well with TC?

I would also apreciate help with choosing the right one. 1.5x, 1.4x?? Kenko, nikon??

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

Last Saturday I made UW tests of a similar set up with my Tokina 10-17 and a Kenko 2X TC.

The 2x TC made focus hard to get, specially on 17 mm side of the focals but acceptable at 10 mm. The 10.5 has wider aperture so this will affect you less than in my case.

 

My first impression is that you can still keep some of the wide angle capability, despite the reduced angle of view, and you can make very good macros with static subjects. With dynamic fishes at medium distance it din't perform very well maninly because the fishes still seem to bee too far and AF problems. With static fishes and macro work you have to get really too close (almost dangerously touching the subject with the dome to for macros) and besides the inherent danger, it's hard to light properly.

 

I thought that this combo will be more versatil that it really showed up in my preliminary test.

 

I still need more testing to evaluate properly tha advantages and disadvantages of this set up and I also want to test it with the 1.4 TC instead of 2x and compare it with the Sigma 15 mm FE.

 

Rai

Edited January 24, 2007 by Rai

[Alex_Mustard 0]

First of all, I plan to write a detailed article on this set up in the next issue of UWP Mag.

 

I have been shooting with the 10.5mm and 1.5xTC. I have been using this setup extensively. The main limitation is suitable subjects - that will allow you to get very close.

 

The main problem is lighting so close to the dome. I use top lighting when the subject is on the seabed and front lighting when it is in the water. I have also been using a small dome - which makes this much easier. But this sacrifices some corner sharpness. This is not really noticeable in macro-wide angle shots, but you can see it when you take normal wide angle shots with this setup - which invariably you will when you can't find subjects - or you see a good wide angle setup.

 

Attached is a straight wide angle shot taken with the 10.5mm and 1.5x TC and small dome. This is just a snap shot I took of my dive buddy a couple of weeks ago. You can see that the corners are not perfect compared with a straight 15/16mm shot. But they are probably still better than most rectilinear lens photos I see!

 

Alex

 

p.s. I'll post some macro-wide angle example shots from this setup in a minute.

 

p.p.s One problem I would have if using the 10-17mm on a teleconverter is that my zoom gear would no longer mesh!

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Here are a couple of images taken with the 10.5mm and 2xTC.

 

In this first one the critters were in the water column, so I front lit them:

 

 

In this second one the critter was on the seabed so I top lit it:

 

Alex

[loftus 42]

What is the advantage of this over the 12-24, which I think is pretty sharp?

 

Alex, will this work with the Subal Fisheye dome, alone or is an extension needed?

[Strmko 0]

Here are a couple of images taken with the 10.5mm and 2xTC.

 

In this first one the critters were in the water column, so I front lit them:

In this second one the critter was on the seabed so I top lit it:

 

Alex

 

Thank you Alex, this examples helped me. I remeber there has been a discussion about this already, but mainly focused on macro wide angle. From your words I relized that 10.5mm+TC is reasonable replacement of 15/16mm FE only when shooting small subjects and getting very very close. Having seen the images, the corner sharpness is still very acceptable for me. This also means I would consider this setup as reasonable replacement for medium wide angle work too. Is there any reason for getting the 15/16mm FE?

Finally, I could not find any TC 1.5x. Is it the older Kenko TC? I found some 1.4x...

 

 

 

Last Saturday I made UW tests of a similar set up with my Tokina 10-17 and a Kenko 2X TC.

The 2x TC made focus hard to get, specially on 17 mm side of the focals but acceptable at 10 mm. The 10.5 has wider aperture so this will affect you less than in my case.

 

My first impression is that you can still keep some of the wide angle capability, despite the reduced angle of view, and you can make very good macros with static subjects. With dynamic fishes at medium distance it din't perform very well maninly because the fishes still seem to bee too far and AF problems. With static fishes and macro work you have to get really too close (almost dangerously touching the subject with the dome to for macros) and besides the inherent danger, it's hard to light properly.

 

I thought that this combo will be more versatil that it really showed up in my preliminary test.

 

I still need more testing to evaluate properly tha advantages and disadvantages of this set up and I also want to test it with the 1.4 TC instead of 2x and compare it with the Sigma 15 mm FE.

 

Rai

 

Rai, this would be very usefull comparison... thank you

[dhaas 38]

I find this combination interesting, and I'm assuming adding a TC to a Fisheye lens will yield sharper corners versus any rectilinear zoom lens. Assuming you know the limitations of subject size and how close you can get close to or shoot farther away it certainly is less hassle than having two lenses....

 

Alex's first photo and Pipefish in mid-water look spectacular to me. I can see in the bottom dwelling stonefish photo where the rock closer is soft. But still I think the incredible depth of field from using a Fisheye lens is an advantage for these types of shots.

 

Walt Stearns is using a TC on his Canon 15mm lens and 5D full frame camera with good edge sharpness results. Better than any zoom lens. I think the Tokina 1.4X......Or maybe a Tamron model.......

 

Anyway, I'll look forward to reading how this works in the next issue of UwP

 

dhaas

[dhaas 38]

P.S. - Been hearing reports of the Tokina 10-17mm Fishee Zoom that are very positive. Very compact lens, close focusing and as you zoom becomes a bit less "fisheye".

 

Supposedly exact same lens as the Pentax 10-17mm!

 

dhaas

[Walt Stearns 54]

dhass is right, I have been experimenting with at least the 1.4X teleconverters on my Canon 15mm lens and 5D. And yes, results concerning edge sharpness has proven to much better than what I could get from an other wide angle zoom lens like the 17-40 or 16-35, for that matter a 14 or 20mm primes behind the same dome. Which now has me thinking about playing around with both the 1.5X and 2X teleconverters with the 15mm fisheye. Llast one to put in that same range as 24mm with my 5D.

 

As we have found, and still finding out, digital does present new, and sometimes frustrating challenges for underwater photography. Experimenting with teleconverters turned into a way out of one problem, shooting superwides with more acceptable corner detail for me to opening another door, as Alex’s case better way of getting better close focus wide angles with his.

 

By the way, Alex, if it is all right with you, I would like to mention what you are doing with this endeavor for UWP in my piece for the Underwater Journal.

[loftus 42]

After reading this; I was presented with a dilemma, or is it a conundrum?

Tomorrow I'm off to Crystal River to hopefully shoot some manatees. Do I shoot 10.5, 10.5 with 1.4 Kenko TC or 12-24?

So, having the day off I went outside and shot off a few shots with each. In the attached shots I tried to keep the SUV about the same side, and looked at the sharpness of the Durango label / 1528 sign (focus point) and edge sharpness of leaves etc.

The 10.5 alone was the clear winner, the 10.5 with TC appeared about the same as the 12-24.

So I'm still not sure the 10.5 with TC has any clear advantage over the 12-24.

Maybe I'll be able to try something like this underwater this weekend.

 

They seem to load in the post in reverse order.

[StephenFrink 9]

After reading this; I was presented with a dilemma, or is it a conundrum?

Tomorrow I'm off to Crystal River to hopefully shoot some manatees. Do I shoot 10.5, 10.5 with 1.4 Kenko TC or 12-24?

So, having the day off I went outside and shot off a few shots with each. In the attached shots I tried to keep the SUV about the same side, and looked at the sharpness of the Durango label / 1528 sign (focus point) and edge sharpness of leaves etc.

The 10.5 alone was the clear winner, the 10.5 with TC appeared about the same as the 12-24.

So I'm still not sure the 10.5 with TC has any clear advantage over the 12-24.

Maybe I'll be able to try something like this underwater this weekend.

 

They seem to load in the post in reverse order.

 

Jeff - I don't know about the telconverter, but after seeing your sample photos I may have to make a citizen's arrest for parking right in front of the fire hydrant!

 

BTW ... 10.5mm + TC looks marginally wider than the 12-24. Might be an advantage on the manatees. Have a great shoot.

[Walt Stearns 54]

Loftus, I see a little bit of where your dilemma is coming from. When comparing Canon 17-40 against the 15 fisheye and teleconverter, above water the 17-40 wins, mainly because it does not produce that fishbowl effect that fisheyes do. And yes, the corners are just fine in that scenario. The conundrum here is how does that lens, be it my 17-40 or your 12-24, behave behind a dome port underwater?

 

For me underwater, the situation between the 17-40 (at 17) and the 15 with the 1.4X teleconverter is reversed. Besides rendering better corner detail, the distortion produced by the lens barreling (fishbowl effect) inherent in all fisheye type lenses, which is reduced somewhat by the teleconverter actually becomes, at least in my eye, more desirable. Unlike shooting the interior of a room where straight lines need to stay straight, underwater, the need for straight lines is seldom an issue.

 

The important thing when shooting is to have fun.

[dhaas 38]

Walt has this right, as underwater fisheye lenses can produce great results, showing minimal curvature effects.

 

I think the real dilemma for most dSLR shooters is having to buy and keep a lens that's great on land (such as the Canon 17-40L or Nikon 12-24mm) and then use a fixed focal length Fisheye lens underwater to get the best dome port performance

 

No one ever said this is a cheap hobby

 

dhaas

[davidrodkeller 0]

I think the real dilemma for most dSLR shooters is having to buy and keep a lens that's great on land (such as the Canon 17-40L or Nikon 12-24mm) and then use a fixed focal length Fisheye lens underwater to get the best dome port performance

I am not as critical of the 12-24 underwater as some. I have had good luck with that lens, used appropriately, behind a 9" low radius dome.

[loftus 42]

Well here are a few pics of manatees from this weekend with the 10.5 and Kenko 1.4X without strobes, straight out of the camera.

The water was not very clear as you can see, but this series captures one of the more playful guys wanting to get his belly rubbed.

Unfortunately I only had my 4cm extension (used with the 12-24) with me and the corners are clipped. next time I will try the 2cm.

My general impression is that I lose some sharpness over the 10.5 alone. Close focus is nice, but otherwise not sure I prefer it over the 12-24 with 2+ dioptre, yet.

[rai 0]

Hi

 

I've just created a thread in a spanish forum about my test with a Tokina 10-17 and a kenko 2X TC:

 

http://forobuceo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27116

 

Only the first nudibranch photo is slightly cropped. The other ones are done at 10-11 or 17 mm.

 

The results are not as good as expected. The tokina is less luminous than other lenses like 10.5 and AF goes mad at 17 mm.

 

My 5 cents: good for moderated wide angle and static subjects that are not afraid of the camera. Good macro relation but distances to subject very small (almost touching the dome) and very hard to give light to help focus and light the scene . Competely useless for dinamic and scary fishes, due to the FE distance scale ditortion get too smal at normal work distances and AF diffculties. Not enough good as verstil combination (as Ia hoped ).

 

I still have to test the Tokina 10-17 mm with Kenko 1.4. More CFWA and I hope AF gets better at 17 mm than in the 2x setup.

 

Rai

[pakman 0]

Rai, I've got a kenko 1.4x. And just testing quickly on land, I didn't see any AF problems at 10mm thru 17mm with the Tokina 10-17, Kenko 1.4x TC, and Canon 400D. But then again, I don't know how it will behave u/w behind a dome...

Edited February 1, 2007 by pakman

[rai 0]

Thanks Pakman

 

I also have tested it with 1.4x and the difference for me is very clear. I use to test it at home by night. This is a low light situation very close to UW at usual depths (at least for me where I use to dive). With the 1.4x the available light is enough to achieve focus across all the focal range, but certainly is not fast and requires good contrat zones.

 

With the 1.4x, the setup is wider an more intended to CFWA than CF (with the 2x). I don't have very good expectatives for fishes here (they use to be small and scary enough to saty too far for getting decent sizes on picture) but I think we can get interesting WA shots.

 

I'll tell about this when I'll make further tests.

 

Rai

[TuriLed 2]

I wonder... did anyone try a 10.5 + tele converter behind an ikelite dome port? which one do you think will fit this combination?

[loftus 42]

I think in any situation where one has a lens slower than 2.8, one is going to start having problems with autofocus using teleconvertors underwater; due to the resulting 1-2 stop loss of maximum aperture. It's probably a problem that's independant of the lens type, brand or focal length.

[pakman 0]

I think in any situation where one has a lens slower than 2.8, one is going to start having problems with autofocus using teleconvertors underwater; due to the resulting 1-2 stop loss of maximum aperture. It's probably a problem that's independant of the lens type, brand or focal length.

 

good point loftus... the 2x TC results in a 2 stop loss while the 1.4x TC is only one stop.

[mrbubbles 0]

I dont know if this has been addressed. For a nikon digital setup in an aquatica housing, do i need any port extentions with the 1.4 teleconverter and the 10.5 lens

[Undertow 31]

I dont know if this has been addressed. For a nikon digital setup in an aquatica housing, do i need any port extentions with the 1.4 teleconverter and the 10.5 lens

 

No, you shouldn't need an extension. I believe the whole concept of this setup (and i may be wrong...) is to get the lens closer to the dome port because it can practically focus on the dome to begin with (i believe...).

 

With the massive view of the 10.5, and without the TC, and with the space between the front of the lens and the dome, one can't make a smallish object too large in frame even if it's practially touching the dome.

 

With the TC, the minimum focus distance (measured from the sensor) remains the same, but the front of the lens is closer to the dome and the field of view is smaller, which increases your reproduction ratio enabling you to shoot small stuff while retaining a super wide angle field of view. hence the oxymoronic term 'macro wideangle'.

 

It does sound like to do this you need to get the dome dangerously close to the object/creature and I'm sure lighting that is a nightmare too. (someone correct me if i'm wrong...)

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I use my combination behind a smaller dome, which is further away from the camera than a standard dome. This makes it easier to light very close subjects - which is difficult with big domes.

 

Alex