Aquatica 9.25" dome port

[marpacifica 0]

Hi,

 

I am looking into housing my D3 in an Aquatica, but am unsure whether the Nikon 14-24mm will do better in the 9.25" optical dome port. I already have the 8" dome port from when I was shooting with the Fuji S2 and a Nikon 12-24mm.

 

Also, can I use the same extension ring that I used on the 8" port, or do I have to get a different ring for the 14-24mm?

 

I tried searching for this topic but ended up with goose eggs.

 

Thank you!

[Viz'art 24]

The 9.25 dome will fare better, given the larger radius, as for the extension, my initial testing concluded that the optical center was pretty far up front of the film (sensor) plane, the extension suggested at this time is the 18458

 

You might also want to download the latest lens chart for the D3 housing from our Website www.aquatica.ca

[marpacifica 0]

Thank you. Will check out the lens chart on your site.

[scorpio_fish 5]

I've used both. The 9.25" is much, much better.

[loftus 42]

Jean,

Have you seen any images with the 9.25" dome and 14-24; do you have any to post? Are you having better success than others out there with this lens?

[Viz'art 24]

I have to get some pool time with it, I will post my result ASAP. all I have now is my own optical bench result. I am really looking forward to the result as I have a keen interest in the lens and our new housing design for the D700.

 

Cheers

[Warren_L 0]

I have to get some pool time with it, I will post my result ASAP. all I have now is my own optical bench result. I am really looking forward to the result as I have a keen interest in the lens and our new housing design for the D700.

 

Cheers

 

I am interested in this also! Let me know what you find out.

[eric black 1]

Jean

Can you also comment on the weight difference between this port and the 8 inch acrylic dome port? I am interested in the upgrade but with recent luggage limitations and the fact that I carry my dive gear with me as well- Im not too sure I can get another couple of pounds overseas without sacrificing something from my already sacrificed to death gear selection.

thanks

eric

[Viz'art 24]

8" dome with shade and neoprene cover is 3.5 pounds

9.25" Glass dome with shade and neoprene cover is 4.5 pounds

 

Loose a few fruits of the loom, its worth the extra pound

[Warren_L 0]

Jean,

Have you seen any images with the 9.25" dome and 14-24; do you have any to post? Are you having better success than others out there with this lens?

 

I'd be interested in seeing any samples, if anyone has any to show.

[Viz'art 24]

Warren, i'm hitting the pool tomorrow morning, so by the end of this week I should have some stuff to send you for evaluation.

 

i'll try and get the 24-70 in the water as well

 

Cheers

[Viz'art 24]

Here are some of the results, wider than f:8 this lens is not really a bright performer, once you close it down it starts to improve and is quite fair around f:16, althought not a nobel prize winner, I would still consider that lens for full frame camera and definetly would recommend it for crop sensor.

 

the last one is a 100% crop of the F16 frame.

[james 0]

Hot Dam* this is useful Jean - thanks! How close were you?

 

I wish everyone had a test jig like that.

 

Cheers

James

[Viz'art 24]

About a meter away if I recall, I move the tripod in and out in order to fill the frame area, but don't really note the precise distance, the big dome make a hell of a difference, anybody want's to shoot this lens with a full frame will have to get this large dome if they want anykind of success, next step will be testing the same lens on my D200 with various ports & extension in order to validate my optical bench results.

[Drew 0]

Nice Jean. Thanks for the hard work.

[loftus 42]

Here are some of the results, wider than f:8 this lens is not really a bright performer, once you close it down it starts to improve and is quite fair around f:16, althought not a nobel prize winner, I would still consider that lens for full frame camera and definetly would recommend it for crop sensor.

 

the last one is a 100% crop of the F16 frame.

Just want to clarify Jean; this is a test of the 14-24 right? From this test you are telling us that the 14-24 is only really beginning to have sharp corners at f16. This is what we've seen at least in pictures with other domes. I don't see anything here that says the larger dome helps any more than the 8' dome.

I'm still hearing that the 14-24 is not really a great lens underwater, and that for now the 17-35 is a better choice for full frame rectilinear wide. It would be interesting to see comparisons of the 17-35 and 14-24 behind an 8" and a 9.25".

I do appreciate what you have done here, but honestly I think all manufacturers should perform these tests with a variety of lenses, and post results BEFORE selling us products or making recommendations, and I'm not sure why this is not standard procedure.

Edited July 31, 2008 by loftus

[Viz'art 24]

Here is the result for the 8 inch dome

 

and a 100% crop of the 8 inch at f:16

[Warren_L 0]

For comparison, here are a couple of shots with the D3/14-24mm combo using the Sea&Sea D3 housing and 8" glass port. These were shot at 14mm, f/5.

 

 

[Drew 0]

I do appreciate what you have done here, but honestly I think all manufacturers should perform these tests with a variety of lenses, and post results BEFORE selling us products or making recommendations, and I'm not sure why this is not standard procedure.

 

Well Jeff, they (and their resellers) do try to do this. Look how hard guys like Jean, Stephen, Ryan and others work at trying to publish their findings. Then there are the manufacturers who don't even dive

That's why WP is so popular

[loftus 42]

Well Jeff, they (and their resellers) do try to do this. Look how hard guys like Jean, Stephen, Ryan and others work at trying to publish their findings. Then there are the manufacturers who don't even dive

That's why WP is so popular

My point exactly; except for Jean (and believe me it scores points when he does this), I have not seen the manufacturers do this. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect manufacturers (not their resellers after the fact) to provide standardised charts like these with their products and posted on their websites. It would seem to be a pretty simple matter to build a small test tank with a chart like this and run your product (housing lens / dome combinations) through this type of testing before making recommendations to your customers. I don't expect them to test every lens but in situations like rectilinear wide difficulties, having objective data would be helpful.

And yes, that's why Wetpixel is so great, but we still should not let the manufacturers of the hook of doing this type of basic testing. These are expensive decisions we make.

I hope that manufacturers (not just Jean) read Wetpixel, so that they can understand better what their customers want and need, whether it's about dome /lens performance, features and controls, D300 fitting a D700 housing etc.

Edited July 31, 2008 by loftus

[StephenFrink 9]

For comparison, here are a couple of shots with the D3/14-24mm combo using the Sea&Sea D3 housing and 8" glass port. These were shot at 14mm, f/5.

 

Hey Warren - Thanks for the real life samples. No offense to you of course, but the corners are pretty grim at F5. What port extension did you use with the 8" dome port?

 

So far I'm thinking that the Canon 16-35mm II is looking pretty good as a benchmark for a wide zoom on a full frame camera.

 

Jean - Thanks also for your tests. Very nicely done. Would it be too much of an imposition to see the 17-35 tested under identical conditions? It would be very interesting to see how the 14-24 and 17-35 compare in the corners at Actual Pixels, at a working aperture we are likely to use underwater ... say F-8. Two lenses, two ports, side-by-side comparisons. Whattcha say?

[Viz'art 24]

Hi Stephen, I actually did the test 17-35mm, but i let my assistant/good friend do the shooting underwater on that lens while I took a rest and warmed myself a bit, (hey! no warm Florida pool for this boy, water is still nippy up here ) anyway, he did not set the tripod forward to get the target from corner to corner, my bad mostly for not reminding him , nonetheless I will post the shot tommorrow (they are at the office), but the obvious result are as expected, not as wide but better corner than the 14-24. still I would like to give that 14-24 with the Megadome a spin around a reef, at f:8 with a carefull composition...

 

I will try and get some more testing in next week and possibly redo the 17-35 and 14-24 as a more side by side. I also plan to run some more lenses on the D3 as well as the D300 or D200 cropped camera and possibly the 1Ds mk III with your favorite chunk of silica, the 16-35mm.

[StephenFrink 9]

Hi Stephen, I actually did the test 17-35mm, but i let my assistant/good friend do the shooting underwater on that lens while I took a rest and warmed myself a bit, (hey! no warm Florida pool for this boy, water is still nippy up here ) anyway, he did not set the tripod forward to get the target from corner to corner, my bad mostly for not reminding him , nonetheless I will post the shot tommorrow (they are at the office), but the obvious result are as expected, not as wide but better corner than the 14-24. still I would like to give that 14-24 with the Megadome a spin around a reef, at f:8 with a carefull composition...

 

I will try and get some more testing in next week and possibly redo the 17-35 and 14-24 as a more side by side. I also plan to run some more lenses on the D3 as well as the D300 or D200 cropped camera and possibly the 1Ds mk III with your favorite chunk of silica, the 16-35mm.

 

Cool. Please make sure it is the 16-35mmII (drastically different & better lens than original 16-35) and my best luck has been with a port extension 57.5mm long with 9" superdome. Give us them all at F8 ... that would be a fabulous comparison. Looking forward to your observations!

Edited August 1, 2008 by StephenFrink

[craig 0]

I'd like to see the 14-24 at 17mm compared to the 17-35 at 17mm. How much of the problem is field of view as opposed to the lens and dome interaction.

[Warren_L 0]

Hey Warren - Thanks for the real life samples. No offense to you of course, but the corners are pretty grim at F5. What port extension did you use with the 8" dome port?

 

So far I'm thinking that the Canon 16-35mm II is looking pretty good as a benchmark for a wide zoom on a full frame camera.

 

Jean - Thanks also for your tests. Very nicely done. Would it be too much of an imposition to see the 17-35 tested under identical conditions? It would be very interesting to see how the 14-24 and 17-35 compare in the corners at Actual Pixels, at a working aperture we are likely to use underwater ... say F-8. Two lenses, two ports, side-by-side comparisons. Whattcha say?

 

Yah, I know. You'd have to ask Ryan what extension was being used as it was his Sea&Sea D3 housing and port setup he brought for me to use during our week at Innerspace in Cayman. I didn't have my Aquatica housing at the time and he kindly offered to bring one for me to use so I could test out the 8" glass dome with the 14-24mm. At first, it seemed decent until I got the images on the computer.

 

If the results with 9.25" megadome seem decent, I may be convinced to go that way, depending on how much I'd have to stop down.