Nikon 14-24 unsharpness?

[craig 0]

Stephen, I assume these are all shot at the widest angle?

[StephenFrink 9]

Stephen, I assume these are all shot at the widest angle?

 

Yes, but for some reason the EXIF on 14-24 did not say 14. However, it was as wide as it would go physically. I was doing all screengrabs quickly in Photo Mechanic and maybe it couldn't read the D3X EXIF data properly, or maybe the D3X didn't encode it right. But,whatever, all lenses were as wide as they would physically go. If we get a shot of consistent blue sky tomorrow I may replicate. It is a rare opportunity to have all these camera and lenses in one place so I should take advantage of it.

 

As I was testing corner sharpness, diver on left scooted one way or another so slate was always in the corner.

Edited February 4, 2009 by StephenFrink

[loftus 42]

Steve,

From these the 12-24 +2 clearly trumps everything else. My only concern is the fact that the corner is 1 foot closer which is kind of arbitrary, maybe if you had one more slate on the other side but at the same distance as the focal point for comparison that would help.

Do you have a dioptre on the 16-35?

Say Hi to Ana Maria your illustrious model.

Edited February 4, 2009 by loftus

[StephenFrink 9]

Steve,

From these the 12-24 +2 clearly trumps everything else. My only concern is the fact that the corner is 1 foot closer which is kind of arbitrary, maybe if you had one more slate on the other side but at the same distance as the focal point for comparison that would help.

Do you have a dioptre on the 16-35?

Say Hi to Ana Maria your illustrious model.

 

Yeah, as if I'm ever going to go to the trouble to test this many corners again in life

 

No 82mm diopter for 16-35II. Could never find a good one that did not vignette.

[loftus 42]

Yeah, as if I'm ever going to go to the trouble to test this many corners again in life

 

No 82mm diopter for 16-35II. Could never find a good one that did not vignette.

I know, guys like me are never satisfied, and give you no respect!

These tests do make you want to drop everything for the 12-24 on a DX though, don't they?

[craig 0]

The 12-24 does look the best of those shown so far. It is also has the narrowest angle of view and the smallest physical aperture.

[Tom_Kline 143]

Thanks for posting these Stephen. However if your time is limited why not start at ~ f/11 with the 14mm FL based on you experience with the Canon 14mm http://www.seacamusa.com/canon-lens-14mm-ii.shtml

Then increment + or – (with emphasis on smaller stops) from there for further exposures. For FL = 14mm, 5.6 is too large a stop for even the DX format, IMHO.

 

Secondly, it is only fair compare lenses using the same angle of view (assuming lenses are all appropriately optimized behind the same port). Therefore one must set the 14-24 and the 17-35 at 18mm (assuming FF) to compare against the 12-24 at 12mm on DX.

 

But back to post #46 in this thread. Does a 100% blow-up of the area above the right shoulder of the bare-chested fellow, i.e., the blue tile edges, look sharp?

 

Tom

Edited February 4, 2009 by Tom_Kline

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Thanks for taking the time to test and post these, Stephen.

 

DX clearly performs the best (12-24mm), particularly with a dioptre, which is as expected. I have also seen it performing very well with a dioptre behind some of Seacam's smaller domes too.

 

And the Canon 16-35 Mk2 is certainly much better than either Nikon lens (at least without dioptres). Did you test many port extension rings with the two lenses to determine which is best - as you said above - after testing the 16-35mm Mk2 you asked Seacam to make a new extension ring specifically for it?

 

Certainly from my tests posted above, the addition of a dioptre made a massive difference for corner sharpness with the 17-35mm (I realise dioptres are not practical with the 16-35mm and 14-24mm). I look forward to seeing these results in comparison with the 16-35mm.

 

I disagree with Tom and Craig about zooming the lenses to the same points. Of course that would be a fairer comparison - and stopping the full frame cameras down an extra stop would be fairer too! But the reality of a photographer using any of these lenses underwater is that they would not stop zooming out if they needed to. They would use the range of the lens that is fitted to their camera. The tests need to be relevant to actual shooting and it is important to know how the lens you attach will perform (I realise Tom, that you don't dive with your cameras - so can't zoom while shooting - the rest of us do).

 

Although I do take Tom's point about F5.6 being very open. I used it above because I felt it was the widest I would typically go with the aperture - and obviously the most likely to show problems. I also tested a F14 - where differences are less clear.

 

Anwyay, Stephen, thanks again for the tests. I'll post something on the front page.

 

Alex

 

p.s.. And for some reason I didn't note that Seacam made a D300 housing before, which is also good news.

[Christian K 0]

I take my virtual hat off to Stephen.

 

It looks like the uncropped images with the D300 and the 12-24 are the same image? The models have their hands, bodies and head positioned exactly the same way, they have exacly the same expression on their faces... Maybe they were in the water for so long they got stiff I suspect it is the dioptre-shot in both examples? If possible, I would like to see the 'full' image of the 12-24 without dioptre.

 

cheers

Edited February 4, 2009 by Christian K

[The Octopus 0]

supposedly, the big advantage of the 14-24 over the 12-24 is less distortion and larger aperture.

I have used my 12-24 without a diopter in my Aquatica housing with good results, but did have distortion.

I was considering the 14-24 to limit this.

Not sure how important the corner sharpness is in the photos we do, I would suspect the distortion is more of an issue?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

supposedly, the big advantage of the 14-24 over the 12-24 is less distortion and larger aperture.

I have used my 12-24 without a diopter in my Aquatica housing with good results, but did have distortion.

I was considering the 14-24 to limit this.

Not sure how important the corner sharpness is in the photos we do, I would suspect the distortion is more of an issue?

 

I wasn't aware of either having major distortion issues. Although when Nikon announced the D3 and 14-24mm I went to a Nikon test day and was shooting alongside an architecture photographer. He was testing the distortion on the 14-24mm and decided it had too much distortion for his work.

 

Alex

[MatthewAddison 0]

Karin. Thank you for your testing. It would seem that neither the camera nor test board were stationary (fixed) during testing, as evidenced by focus issues. I believe these issues render the tests rather inconclusive.

May I recommend using a tripod for the camera and hard mounting a focus board 1 meter from the lens. Also, using Apertures between 5.6 - 16 (most used range) would be helpful.

My early testing which I posted here last summer using a Nikon D3 comparing a 14mm and 17-35 was rudimentary at best, using pool lane tiles.

The tests did show severe corner aberrations in the 14mm lens compared to the 17-35 @17mm, no diopter throughout the aperture range of the lenses.

Thank you for the testing. What dome/spacer/housing were you using?

[craig 0]

It's not clear that the 14-24 is worse than the 17-35 at 17mm but it is clear that the 17-35 is worse than the 14-24 at 14mm. You have to decide how important the wider perspective is, but you can't say the 14-24 is softer on the edges when you aren't comparing the same edges. A 60mm behind a dome would look pretty good in this test (not criticizing the test) because it doesn't have any wide edges.

 

This test is important, probably the most important; I'm simply pointing out that comparing like fields of view is critical to judging lenses against one another. Normalizing physical aperture is also important. Then you see that port optics are more important than sensor size.

 

It's clear, though, that with the port tested here that the 14-24 is at a disadvantage not allowing a diopter.

 

The 12-24 has significant distortion when used with diopters. How important is that underwater when you consider the popularity of fisheyes? It doesn't seem to be a disadvantage in this test. I'd like to see a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22 though I realize the circumstances.

[ehanauer 50]

I had been using the 12-24 with a +2 diopter, but recently started using a +4 with better results. Still a bit of corner distortion, but less than with the +2. It's still my go-to lens for sharks and other big critters.

[Paul Kay 65]

I'm simply pointing out that comparing like fields of view is critical to judging lenses against one another.

As Craig say comparing like fields of view is a critical requirement, as indeed are determining 'output requirements'. Simply looking at every lens at its widest setting, at various apertures and at a 100% crop will reveal flaws in most to some degree, so for a really meaningful test to be carried out, the parameters which are being compared have to be considered carefully to allow like to be compared with like. Stephen's comparisons show that the narrower field of view of the DX lens and format appears to produce better corners from how I read them. Which is to be expected.

 

I've started putting a page together about Dome Port Theory. Its not complete and misses vast nuances which all play a role, but at least its a start. I'll try to add to it idc. If anyone wants to comment, pm me:

 

http://www.marinewildlife.co.uk/wisscms-en-243.aspx

[PeteAtkinson 53]

I had been using the 12-24 with a +2 diopter, but recently started using a +4 with better results. Still a bit of corner distortion, but less than with the +2. It's still my go-to lens for sharks and other big critters.

 

Some of the enhanced corner sharpness with a +4 could be a side-effect of the narrower angle of view, compared with the +2. I was using a +3 with the 12-24 (Seacam Superdome and 55mm extension) since the corners were better than the +2, but I discovered I could not focus on infinity with the +3, so now I have reverted to using the B&W +2. This makes theoretical sense. I don't know whether infinity would have been included in the depth of focus.

[StephenFrink 9]

Quick one as I am in Bonaire teaching a photo course at the moment, but thought these tests would be relevant to discussion. All shot with Seacam housings, with superdome and appropriate port extension. Focus on exposure slate in center, corner screengrab from 100% enlargement on second exposure slate in lower left corner, about 1 foot closer to camera than focus point, intentionally to replicate typical UW reef scene.

 

More today:

 

14mm on Canon EOS1DsMKIII ... needs to be at F-8 or F-11 for the right performance. PVL 20 + superdome.

 

 

[StephenFrink 9]

smaller apertures help. 16-35II on 1DsMKIII at 5.6

 

 

at F-11

 

[StephenFrink 9]

17-35 Nikkor on D3X, +2 diopter

 

 

at F-5.6

 

at F-16

[StephenFrink 9]

14-24 on Nikon D3X with various port extensions

 

full shot, superdome and PVL50

 

PVL55

 

PVL50

 

PVL45

 

PVL 50 is the winner.

Edited February 5, 2009 by StephenFrink

[StephenFrink 9]

Tokina 10-17 on D2X, 10mm, superdome no port extension

 

Edited February 5, 2009 by StephenFrink

[StephenFrink 9]

Nikkor 16mm fisheye on D300

 

Edited February 5, 2009 by StephenFrink

[Tom_Kline 143]

I disagree with Tom and Craig about zooming the lenses to the same points. Of course that would be a fairer comparison - and stopping the full frame cameras down an extra stop would be fairer too! But the reality of a photographer using any of these lenses underwater is that they would not stop zooming out if they needed to. They would use the range of the lens that is fitted to their camera. The tests need to be relevant to actual shooting and it is important to know how the lens you attach will perform (I realise Tom, that you don't dive with your cameras - so can't zoom while shooting - the rest of us do).

 

Alex,

I do dive my cameras, however, they can get a lot more 'bottom time' in a day of stream shooting compared to scuba diving. While not limited by air, there are other limitations such as day length, card size, and at some sites tide (one of my favorite streams has to be accessed at low tide from its seaward end).

 

There is a need to choose FL regardless of mode used to deploy ones camera. I have used 14mm the most for stream shooting with the DX format, however there are times when wider or even longer would be better. Being able to zoom at the time of deployment or being able to adjust during a shoot would be beneficial. What may be the main advantage of the 14-24 over the 14 prime is its superior resistance to flare. 14 is quite wide, I think the 18- 20 mm FL range would be best for what I do based on recent experience. Thus the 17-35 would also do. I use the 10.5 when the fish are so dense they tend to run right up to and contact the port, it would be these situations where 14mm on FF would be good too.

 

BTW, Happy Birthday Old Boy!!

Tom

Edited February 6, 2009 by Tom_Kline

[Tom_Kline 143]

14-24 on Nikon D3X with various port extensions

 

 

 

PVL 50 is the winner.

Hi Stephen,

WOW!!

Very impressive results suggesting this lens is far better than what others have reported. This was only f/8 too! Looks like 5mm of port extension can make a big difference!! I suspect this why others have not gotten such good results.

Thank you!!

Tom

[Tom_Kline 143]

As Craig say comparing like fields of view is a critical requirement, as indeed are determining 'output requirements'. Simply looking at every lens at its widest setting, at various apertures and at a 100% crop will reveal flaws in most to some degree, so for a really meaningful test to be carried out, the parameters which are being compared have to be considered carefully to allow like to be compared with like. Stephen's comparisons show that the narrower field of view of the DX lens and format appears to produce better corners from how I read them. Which is to be expected.

 

I've started putting a page together about Dome Port Theory. Its not complete and misses vast nuances which all play a role, but at least its a start. I'll try to add to it idc. If anyone wants to comment, pm me:

 

http://www.marinewildlife.co.uk/wisscms-en-243.aspx

Hi Paul,

You have a good start. However, I would replace 'entrance node' with 'entrance pupil'. See page 48 of McNeil 1972, Optical Fundamentals of Underwater Photography, 2nd ed. I realize that Ray uses entrance node on p. 350 of Applied Photographic Optics, 2nd ed., but this is probably incorrect. Note that he cites McNeil. There is a discussion on this terminology here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_plane#F...ints_and_planes

and here:

http://www.vrphotography.com/data/pages/te...ptalign-tn.html

Tom

 

 

ps. It would be good to have some drawings as well.

 

Tom

Edited February 5, 2009 by Tom_Kline