Nikon 14-24 unsharpness?

[kaarlin 8]

Is there anyone who worked with the 14-24mm lens underwater. I would like to see some results and am curious about the unsharpness everybody is talking about.

 

I doubt between the 14-24mm and the 17-35mm lens.

 

 

[Edit - subtitle added by Moderator]

[kaarlin 8]

this thursday I will be in the swimmingpool with Ron Offermans and we will test the 14-24....

[Drew 0]

Do a search in this subforum. There is a thread with the info you need.

[kaarlin 8]

Yes, but nobody who really tried this lens underwater. It is all based on what people think this lens would do. I would like to see the results of the 14-24 so I can decide if this lens is good enough or not

[loftus 42]

Yes, but nobody who really tried this lens underwater. It is all based on what people think this lens would do. I would like to see the results of the 14-24 so I can decide if this lens is good enough or not

A couple of people who have used this lens underwater have posted on WP. One of them is Matthew Addison; the general consensus has been poor corner sharpness as expected unless stopped down significantly. This lens is not able to take a diopter which is one of the factors making it difficult to get good results underwater.

[The Octopus 0]

I have used the 12-24 nikon with my Aquatica rig and have gotten very good photos, I am also considering the 14-24 as it is reported to have much less distortion at 14mm than the 12-24 and supposed to be sharper on the surface.

I don't use diopers with my 12-24 (not recommended by Aquatica). I assume that placement of the dome from the lens as well as the size of the Dome would affect sharpness greatly with these lenses.

It would be great to see a side by side comparison.

[StephenFrink 9]

Is there anyone who worked with the 14-24mm lens underwater. I would like to see some results and am curious about the unsharpness everybody is talking about.

 

I doubt between the 14-24mm and the 17-35mm lens.

 

I'll try to transmit a test from Bonaire next week. I'm teaching a Digital Master class, http://waterhousetours.com/instruction#52, and we'll have 2 - D3X/Seacam/14-24 rigs there. I'm sure there will be a 17-35mm as well, so if time allows maybe we can do a semi-definitive comparo, at least for in-water issues.

 

This will also be my first intensive UW tests of my new Seaflash 150 on the reef (I've shot several swim competitions with it, but no typical reef stuff yet). I'll be checking for rear-curtain synch with Canon, and of course E-TTL accuracy. Both have tested fine in studio and pool, but eager for some real-life experiences.

Edited January 26, 2009 by StephenFrink

[loftus 42]

I have used the 12-24 nikon with my Aquatica rig and have gotten very good photos, I am also considering the 14-24 as it is reported to have much less distortion at 14mm than the 12-24 and supposed to be sharper on the surface.

I don't use diopers with my 12-24 (not recommended by Aquatica). I assume that placement of the dome from the lens as well as the size of the Dome would affect sharpness greatly with these lenses.

It would be great to see a side by side comparison.

The 12-24 is a DX lens; the 14-24 is essentially for FX. So they are not really comparable.

Edited January 26, 2009 by loftus

[Drew 0]

Yes, but nobody who really tried this lens underwater. It is all based on what people think this lens would do. I would like to see the results of the 14-24 so I can decide if this lens is good enough or not

Next time use the advance search. The information here is a little hard to find because there is so much but it's there. I found pertinent threads in 3 minutes of searching such as this one:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25723

[divegypsy 23]

I disagree with what Loftus has said about the 12-24 (on DX) and the 14-24 (on FX) not being comparable. I feel they are absolutely comparable. As are any pair of lenses. Or pair of cameras

 

The true comparison is the final image. If both cameras are of similar resolution (megapixels), you simply shoot two shots, filling the frame equally with the same subject under the same conditions, preferably the same type of conditions you usually dive and shoot in. Then you enlarge the two images to the same actual physical size, perhaps to 10x15 inch prints. And yes, this means you have to enlarge the DX image 1.5x that of the FX image.

 

Then you look at the two prints, side by side, and see which one you prefer. And why.

 

You could shoot and compare a portrait of a manatee shot with a full frame fisheye and with a 35mm lens. The fisheye shot would probably be technically sharper because there is less water between the camera and the manatee. But the fisheye distortion and extreme foreshortening of the manatee’s features might also be objectionable. And in that case the slightly less sharp 35mm lens image might give you the picture that you feel better shows what a manatee looks like, to you. And so for you, the 35mm lens is the better lens to shoot manatee portraits with.

 

Getting carried away with the technical aspects of photography equipment is just a jerk off.

 

The only thing that really matters is what the final image looks like.

 

And, most important of all, whether it satisfies YOU or not.

 

Fred

[loftus 42]

I disagree with what Loftus has said about the 12-24 (on DX) and the 14-24 (on FX) not being comparable. I feel they are absolutely comparable. As are any pair of lenses. Or pair of cameras

 

The true comparison is the final image. If both cameras are of similar resolution (megapixels), you simply shoot two shots, filling the frame equally with the same subject under the same conditions, preferably the same type of conditions you usually dive and shoot in. Then you enlarge the two images to the same actual physical size, perhaps to 10x15 inch prints. And yes, this means you have to enlarge the DX image 1.5x that of the FX image.

 

Then you look at the two prints, side by side, and see which one you prefer. And why.

 

You could shoot and compare a portrait of a manatee shot with a full frame fisheye and with a 35mm lens. The fisheye shot would probably be technically sharper because there is less water between the camera and the manatee. But the fisheye distortion and extreme foreshortening of the manatee’s features might also be objectionable. And in that case the slightly less sharp 35mm lens image might give you the picture that you feel better shows what a manatee looks like, to you. And so for you, the 35mm lens is the better lens to shoot manatee portraits with.

 

Getting carried away with the technical aspects of photography equipment is just a jerk off.

 

The only thing that really matters is what the final image looks like.

 

And, most important of all, whether it satisfies YOU or not.

 

Fred

I'm simply saying that the 12-24 is designed for DX, so if you are seeking a wide rectilinear for a DX camera, most likely this would be the better choice. The 12-24 will only work on an FX camera in DX mode. (5MP on a D700) I don't know what camera kaarlin is planning to use. Appears octopus uses a D300.

Similarly the 14-24 is designed for FX.

Max FOV on the 14-24 is 114 degrees on FX

Max FOV on the 12-24 is 99 degrees on DX

So yes they are different.

Edited January 27, 2009 by loftus

[jeremypayne 0]

Getting carried away with the technical aspects of photography equipment is just a jerk off.

 

Some people want to understand exactly how their equipment works. Why is that a jerk off?

 

You have a right to choose to be indifferent to a deep understanding of the underlying technology, but why be pejorative about someone who makes a different choice?

[Drew 0]

You could shoot and compare a portrait of a manatee shot with a full frame fisheye and with a 35mm lens. The fisheye shot would probably be technically sharper because there is less water between the camera and the manatee. But the fisheye distortion and extreme foreshortening of the manatee’s features might also be objectionable. And in that case the slightly less sharp 35mm lens image might give you the picture that you feel better shows what a manatee looks like, to you. And so for you, the 35mm lens is the better lens to shoot manatee portraits with.

 

Getting carried away with the technical aspects of photography equipment is just a jerk off.

 

The only thing that really matters is what the final image looks like.

 

And, most important of all, whether it satisfies YOU or not.

Fred I'm sure you studied the technical aspects of lenses, dome ports and other areas of underwater photographic equipment to better your chances of getting the shot you want. Just like in your example, knowing what the lenses do behind a dome port helps with framing, due to corner sharpness issues. Blind shooting can be a total waste of time. Knowing all aspects of the camera and lens and how it works behind a dome port is absolutely essential for a photographer. WP became popular because of the learning curve of digital vs film. It's easy to forget that all pros including yourself had to experiment to get the right lens behind the right port etc at the beginning of the digital evolution of photography.

Technical discussions can help, although if it's all discussion and no photo taking, then it's largely academic... but still useful info for those who know how to use it.

[kaarlin 8]

Hi Drew,

 

thanks a lot for the thread. That makes it vissible for me! With the 9.25"dome there is a unsharpness, but much less than the 8"dome. But still.... there is unsharpness. Thursday I will make some testshots with the 14-24mm amd the 17-35mm to sea the difference in this between the two lenses.

 

Karin

[divegypsy 23]

While I have taken the time to understand the basic theory of things like how a lens performs behind a dove port vs a flat port, I do not feel that debating the theoretical technical differences of things like the difference of a 5mm longer or shorter extension tube for a wide angle lens behind a particular dome port is a productive use of time. It is much better to just get the pieces and try them. And as long as the results are satisfactory, then spend your time diving and shooting. And as long as the results work for you, and your customers if you have any, then just use what you have and keep shooting. The old press cliche applies, "F8 and BE THERE".

 

Several years ago I suggested that people might try Nikon's 24-85mm in its "macro mode" lens behind a modest size dome as a very nice close focus WA. And I had one guy tell me the lens was OK on land but thought it wasn't particularly sharp after he had tried it behind a flat port. I have shot a large quantity of shots with the lens exactly as I proposed, many of which have been published in quality magazines such as National Geographic, GEO, and others. If I had gotten carried away with all the techno-babble, I might never have even used the lens because it doesn't have all of Nikon's highest technology like ED glass or crystal nano lens coating. But neither did the older non-VR 105 Micro-nikkor.

 

I still feel that you just try something and if it works for you, use it. And that the actual pictures are what really count. Not the gear.

 

Fred

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I don't have a 14-24mm, but I have finally tested the 17-35mm more thoroughly on FX Nikon now.

 

I have tested it in my Subal system in three different domes, with three different port extension rings and two different dioptres (and without) over a range of apertures and at 17mm and at 35mm. It was quite an undertaking! And I have not been through the results in detail.

 

First impressions at 17mm are that dioptres improve edge sharpness, but also increase pincushion distortion. These are 100% crops taken at F5.6 - what I reckoned would be the widest aperture I would be likely to use. Stopped down the edge performance is better, because there is more depth of field to bring the virtual image into focus.

 

So, F5.6, 17mm, No Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

 

F5.6, 17mm, +3 Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

 

F5.6, 17mm, +4 Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

Excuse image quality - not the best as light was going (ISO 1600). Anyway it is clear that the +4 dioptre has better edge detail in the tiles than the +3 and both are much better than no dioptre - in which detail is almost blurred completely.

 

As expected the tests show the importance of a dioptre. Since the 14-24mm cannot take a dioptre and is wider than the 17-35mm I can only envisage the edge performance being worse than the first image above. Of course stopping the lens down might improve the situation.

 

Alex

[Drew 0]

While I have taken the time to understand the basic theory of things like how a lens performs behind a dove port vs a flat port, I do not feel that debating the theoretical technical differences of things like the difference of a 5mm longer or shorter extension tube for a wide angle lens behind a particular dome port is a productive use of time. It is much better to just get the pieces and try them. And as long as the results are satisfactory, then spend your time diving and shooting. And as long as the results work for you, and your customers if you have any, then just use what you have and keep shooting. The old press cliche applies, "F8 and BE THERE".

 

Several years ago I suggested that people might try Nikon's 24-85mm in its "macro mode" lens behind a modest size dome as a very nice close focus WA. And I had one guy tell me the lens was OK on land but thought it wasn't particularly sharp after he had tried it behind a flat port. I have shot a large quantity of shots with the lens exactly as I proposed, many of which have been published in quality magazines such as National Geographic, GEO, and others. If I had gotten carried away with all the techno-babble, I might never have even used the lens because it doesn't have all of Nikon's highest technology like ED glass or crystal nano lens coating. But neither did the older non-VR 105 Micro-nikkor.

Sure, and if you didn't understand the theories of dome ports and extension rings and how they fit together, then you'd be like that "one guy" who loses out. Flat port on a 24mm? And now because of your contribution, other people now can try that particular lens with a configuration based on the physics/techno babble and not waste 3x more time trying to find an optimum solution by trial and error.

I'm all for testing to confirm as in the case of the 14-24 on FX, but the physics is pretty hard to deny and obviously enough people have done the test dives to prove the physics . That's what this community is about, Fred, to share ideas and solutions (of course SEARCH the forums for the answers before posting yet another same question to the issue). I'm sure the reason you are a member is not to tell people not to talk and go out and shoot, but to share your vast expertise and maybe even learn a thing or two. Even your other natgeo colleagues and others in the same field have browsed WP for info. So I see no harm in covering the physics before going out to test and then sharing the results. That would save a lot of time in finding the optimum port combination through pruning myself in a pool for hours.

[loftus 42]

I don't have a 14-24mm, but I have finally tested the 17-35mm more thoroughly on FX Nikon now.

 

I have tested it in my Subal system in three different domes, with three different port extension rings and two different dioptres (and without) over a range of apertures and at 17mm and at 35mm. It was quite an undertaking! And I have not been through the results in detail.

 

First impressions at 17mm are that dioptres improve edge sharpness, but also increase pincushion distortion. These are 100% crops taken at F5.6 - what I reckoned would be the widest aperture I would be likely to use. Stopped down the edge performance is better, because there is more depth of field to bring the virtual image into focus.

 

So, F5.6, 17mm, No Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

 

F5.6, 17mm, +3 Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

 

F5.6, 17mm, +4 Dioptre, 100% edge crop:

 

Excuse image quality - not the best as light was going (ISO 1600). Anyway it is clear that the +4 dioptre has better edge detail in the tiles than the +3 and both are much better than no dioptre - in which detail is almost blurred completely.

 

As expected the tests show the importance of a dioptre. Since the 14-24mm cannot take a dioptre and is wider than the 17-35mm I can only envisage the edge performance being worse than the first image above. Of course stopping the lens down might improve the situation.

 

Alex

Thanks Alex. That's helpful. What's your preferred extension ring, same as you used previously?

[divegypsy 23]

Hi Alex,

 

A very nice comparison of the 17-35mm lens with and without diopters. So interesting that I'll have to do a similar set of tests with my own Seacam domes.

 

I think it might also be interesting to see center sharpness comparisons of the same shots so we can see how much (if any) sharpness is lost to the center of the image by adding the diopter to the prime lens.

 

Could you also please tell us what size dome these shots were taken with as a +4 diopter might be too strong for use with a large size dome and not allow the lens to focus on an "infinity" virtual image.

 

Fred

[divegypsy 23]

Drew,

 

I was not saying sharing information is not worthwhile. I have always been willing to do that. If we share, we all get better, and benefit.

 

I'm simply saying that it is the final image that really matters. Also, I have not been a "natgeo colleague". Always outside. I just don't fit into the local politics there.

 

The stories I have sold to them - manatees, giant octopus, giant cuttlefish, crinoids and frogfish - have all been projects I "self-assigned" and showed only when I was satisfied with the results. And not one time when I was at National Geographic, and almost never at any other magazine, except perhaps a dive magazine, have I been asked about which camera or which lens a picture was taken with.

 

What is really important, what sells, is the story idea and how the images make the story concept work. Magazines buy pictures, sometimes, but what they run are STORIES. So the best way to sell your work to a magazine is to analyze the kinds of stories they use and then come up with a fresh idea for a new story. And walk in the door with a completed story.

 

Then you sell them the whole package, not one picture or two. And even National Geographic will use a technically weak picture, IF the image content is particularly unique or important to the story concept.

 

And that is the experience on which I say, "Don't waste too much time on technical aspects."

 

Get in the water and shoot what is really important to you.

 

Fred

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Thanks Alex. That's helpful. What's your preferred extension ring, same as you used previously?

 

Hey Jeff, these are with Subal FE2 port and ext ring. I haven't actually had time to go through all the test images, yet, once I do I let you know which ext ring dioptre combo is best. But actually my aim was to determine acceptable limits in various configs. I took close to 100 images (3 domes, 3 ext rings, 3 dioptre options, range of apertures means a lot of variables).

 

 

A very nice comparison of the 17-35mm lens with and without diopters. So interesting that I'll have to do a similar set of tests with my own Seacam domes.

 

I think it might also be interesting to see center sharpness comparisons of the same shots so we can see how much (if any) sharpness is lost to the center of the image by adding the diopter to the prime lens.

 

Hi Fred, I used 3 domes, but the shots above (and below) these were taken with the Subal FE2 dome - usually referred to as a 8" dome. Considerably smaller than Seacam superdome.

 

Here are the centre frame details from the same shots. All F5.6. The no dioptre case is perhaps marginally sharper - although it may just be a bit brighter (i shot on auto exposure in the failing light) - these are totally unprocessed crops from the NEFs. These images are the same scale (100%) as the ones above - and the size of the tiles shows the pincushion distortion from the dioptres (bigger tiles at edge of frame, the examples above). But the main observation is the drop off in sharpness at edge of frame with no dioptre (top image above vs top image here).

 

 

 

 

We have 2 Seacam shooters in our group here. I shot the Superdome and Canon 16-35mm Mk2 in the pool (no dioptre) earlier in the week. I don't have the files, but it seemed to be pretty good in the corners without a dioptre when stopped down. At F2.8 - even through the viewfinder the corners were clearly blurred.

 

I agree on the need to go shooting rather than worrying too much about these things - which is exactly what I intend to do now. The squid are waiting!

 

Alex

[craig 0]

...

And that is the experience on which I say, "Don't waste too much time on technical aspects."

 

Get in the water and shoot what is really important to you.

 

Fred

Some athletes are in it to get paid. Others for the love of the game.

[StephenFrink 9]

We have 2 Seacam shooters in our group here. I shot the Superdome and Canon 16-35mm Mk2 in the pool (no dioptre) earlier in the week. I don't have the files, but it seemed to be pretty good in the corners without a dioptre when stopped down. At F2.8 - even through the viewfinder the corners were clearly blurred.

 

Alex

 

Hi Alex - Not intending to highjack thread away from 14-24 but I was curious about the port extension used by your Seacam shooters for 16-35II and superdome. I assume they are shooting full frame Canons? If so, my tests suggested the sweet-spot was between 55 and 60mm. To that end, I asked Harald to create a PVL 57.5 (measured in MM). That's what I use for my 16-35II and have been very satisfied. Far more so than with either old style 16-35 or 17-40.

 

Speaking of evolutionary observations regarding port extensions, I've revised my recommendations on the 14mm II and superdome with full frame Canons to a PVL20. Details here: http://stephenfrink.blogspot.com/2009/01/l...n-progress.html

 

With both lenses my standard ISO is 200 in order to get enough light to allow me to work at F-8 and smaller in most scenarios.

 

This shot was pretty low light though ... F-6.3 at 1/25th second.

 

Here's the full shot:

Here's the corner detail:

 

If everything had been along a single plane, the corner performance would have looked better, but this is pretty typical of the kinds of set-ups we find on the reef.

Edited January 29, 2009 by StephenFrink

[divegypsy 23]

Alex,

 

Looking at the center sections of your three shots, as they appear on my laptop screen, the first center shot, the one where no diopter was used, looks sharper and more contrasty than the diopter shots to my eyes.

 

It may be that some center quality must be sacrificed when using a diopter to achieve the better edge quality. And if this is so, then it becomes a value judgement. A choice of which area you think is more important.

 

Do you remember how you focused the image. Was it using auto-focus or manual focus. And if it was auto-focus, which of the camera’s many auto-focus points did you use? This might also have a considerable affect on the final image.

 

As a general rule, I try to avoid adding any optics to an original lens in the belief that the people who designed the lens made it as sharp as they could within the financial limitations that were imposed. And that adding extra optics is always at a cost. This is also why most of the larger than 1:1 shooting I do is done with extension tubes rather than close-up lenses and tele-converters.

 

I also agree with your choice of lens to test. Although I own both the 17-35 and the 14-24, I feel the 17-35 is far more useful for general wide-angle shooting. And more versatile. I bought the 14-24 to test as a possible alternative for my fixed 14mm lenses, which I use primarily for over/under shooting.

 

Good luck with the squid.

 

Fred

 

 

Fred

[photovan 0]

Hi Alex - Not intending to highjack thread away from 14-24 but I was curious about the port extension used by your Seacam shooters for 16-35II and superdome. I assume they are shooting full frame Canons? If so, my tests suggested the sweet-spot was between 55 and 60mm. To that end, I asked Harald to create a PVL 57.5 (measured in MM). That's what I use for my 16-35II and have been very satisfied. .....

I'm using the EF 16-35II with 1dsmkii behind superdome with 60mm of extension with no diopter. I mentioned the other day when this subject came up in another thread, I tried a set of 82mm diopters(+1,+2,+3,+4), but was disappointed with all results, preferring the result from no diopter. Mind you they may be crap diopters, as they are a no-name brand but were the only 82mm ones I could find . I ended up at 60mm ext becausee I already had PVL35, and added a PVL25 to total 60 and so I could use the PVL25 with the 14mmII. Ouch ...wish I had of known 20mm would have been better for the 14mm....

BTW I'm expecting the 21.7MP of the 5dmkii (or the 1dsmkiii) to be more demanding than my 16.7 MP.