Jump to content
pxguru

Wide Angle Tokinas

Recommended Posts

I've got a 12-24mm Tokina which I'm using with my D300 and picked up a 10.5mm Nikon Fisheye recently. I use the 12-24 above and below water, so its flexible for me.

 

Now, given that a bunch of folks here seem to consistently reference the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom as a lens of choice, and given that there is an 11-16 Tokina WA also available, what are the pros and cons of the 10-17 vs the 11-16 ? The 12-24 vs 11-16 is just a matter of angle of coverage I suspect (16mm - 26mm equivalent on a DX sensor for the 10-17 vs 18-36mm for the 12-24).

 

Fisheye vs rectilinear ? Is it worth me swapping the 12-24 for the 11-16 or 10-17 ? Appreciate any insights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the pros and cons of the 10-17 vs the 11-16 ?

Basically the same as the pros and cons you have at hand now with the 12-24 vs 10.5.

The 10-17 is a fisheye lens, it distorts everything just like the 10.5mm

The 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, like the 12-24.

With small differences:

1) 10-17 is a little better at versatility than 10.5, which is better at IQ.

2) 11-16 might have different IQ than the 12-24 (it's considered a PRO lens at f/2.8), don't know... I use a Sigma 10-20, and will probably change to Nikkor 10-24.

 

The 12-24 vs 11-16 is just a matter of angle of coverage I suspect (16mm - 26mm equivalent on a DX sensor for the 10-17 vs 18-36mm for the 12-24).

Mostly, although I did not understand what you meant in the parenthesis.

 

Fisheye vs rectilinear ? Is it worth me swapping the 12-24 for the 11-16 or 10-17 ? Appreciate any insights.

2 different brushes for different effects.

I use both and I came to love the fisheye underwater, most of the time I use the FE underwater and the WA on land, but I swap that sometimes as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 different brushes for different effects.

I use both and I came to love the fisheye underwater, most of the time I use the FE underwater and the WA on land, but I swap that sometimes as well...

 

What's the true benefit of using the FE underwater? I used my 10.5mm 2 weeks ago when I was diving Pulau Redang and couldn't figure if it was best for wide-angle or close ups...I had to get very close to a VERY big moray to fill the frame!

 

I've used the 12-24 for general wide angle reef shots to good effect, and again for some close up work - but the same worry about scratching the dome on the nose of a critter always worries me...haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-24 is a great big animal lens (whales and sharks) that don't come very close.

 

10-17 is great for the big picture, CFWA, and big animals in bad vis.

 

Both are essential lenses, but I use the 10-17 underwater a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I had to get very close to a VERY big moray to fill the frame!

 

Exactly! that means less water between you and your subject, making the shot sharper and easier to light. I don´t think neither of those lens are the best to capture a mooray regarding the size, unless you are intending to do close focus wide angle shots...

 

As it´s been said before those are two different lens for two different effects, and for that fact is orange to apples comparison. One more thing, if you get a 10-17 say good bye to the 10.5 it will start to collect dust.

 

For UWP you´ll find the 10-17 almost enough lens for WA shots, there are only few cases that you wish to not be a fish eye...

 

I think for now you can get some more water on that 10.5 and that 12-24, since you already have them, and FE lens are tricky to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is clear, but focal lengths in fisheye terms mean different angles of coverage vs a rectilinear lens. the 10-17mm fisheye is 180degrees-100degrees, the 11-16mm is 104degrees-82degrees.

 

I love the 11-16mm, my new fav uw wide lens, prefer it over the nikon 12-24mm, and i'm a bit of a nikkor snob. I like the lack of distortion, especially for animals, vs a fisheye. I also shoot the 10.5mm FE and the sigma 15mm FE, for their strengths. Here's a couple shots from today with the tokina 11-16mm (both at 11mm). The first is slightly cropped. The whale was in only 30ft of water, gnarley.

 

3460750611_5561b817e2_o.jpg

 

3460648299_b3cd502759_o.jpg

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is clear, but focal lengths in fisheye terms mean different angles of coverage vs a rectilinear lens. the 10-17mm fisheye is 180degrees-100degrees, the 11-16mm is 104degrees-82degrees.

 

The angle of coverage is clear - thanks. I think this is a good example of a discussion which benefits from photographic examples of what a lens can do - that was the subject of a thread a few weeks back if I remember correctly.

 

I took down my 10.5 FE for the first time last week and have simply beenlearning what it can do, what is captures well and what it doesn't. Wide angle vs distorted views is the one area I need to understand/visualise. Why do people love 10-17 more than 11-16 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people love 10-17 more than 11-16 ?

2 completely different lenses, the 10-17 is about as wide at 17 than the 11-16 at 11.

Much easier with 10-17 to get sharpness in the corners.

10-17 focuses closer

At 17, the 10-17 has less distortion, so it behaves, at least underwater, close to a superwide rectilinear.

Overall I don't see any real advantage switching from the 12-24 to the 11-16.

Rather keep the 12-24 and add the 10-17.

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The angle of coverage is clear - thanks. I think this is a good example of a discussion which benefits from photographic examples of what a lens can do - that was the subject of a thread a few weeks back if I remember correctly.

 

I took down my 10.5 FE for the first time last week and have simply beenlearning what it can do, what is captures well and what it doesn't. Wide angle vs distorted views is the one area I need to understand/visualise. Why do people love 10-17 more than 11-16 ?

 

First of all, I don't think that many have used the 11-16 uw. It's supposted to be a very good land lens though.

 

Some reasons for why people love the 10-17 is that:

 

* it's the only fisheye zoom lens. no need to be restricted to 10.5mm FE.

* it can focus inside the DOME! meaning you can even place stuff on the DOME (jellyfish, starfish etc) and still get it perfectly sharp. So, in theory, you get NO water between the lens and object.

* at 10mm it's very wide. You can get very close (minimize water in between) to very large things and still have them inside the frame.

the worse conditions (bad viz etc) you dive in, the more important FE and close focus gets.

* it's supported by most uw-housings and works for many camera models and brands.

* it's not pricey.

* it's sharp and focus good and fast (even though it has no focus engine). Most WA focus fast though.

* as with most FE, even your corners are sharp even at large f stops. Few non FE gets sharp corners behind a DOME. And most who do requires the use of small f-stops.

if your subject is in open water, then that seldom matters, but if you shoot a reef than not getting sharp corners is very annoying.

 

 

/Peter

Edited by Segerdahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Octopus" and I are about to do our own comparison testing of the 10 - 17 FE and 11 - 16 Tokinas in Turks and Caicos starting Saturday and will post some results - since we are both diving D300's with Aquatica housings and diving together (and he invariably hogs all my good shots (just kidding - sort of)) - we will try to do a few dives with one of us using one lens and the other using the opposite lens and shooting the same subjects and see what we get. Will update when we can process the pics and get on-line.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my first set of whale shots were done with the d200 and the 12-24, this year I used my d300 and the 10-17 (mostly at 10mm) for the shots. Different distortion with the lenses. We will be trying the 11-16 underwater in Tyrks this week, so far it blows the 12-24 away on the land.

Shot attached is what happens when you let the whale get too close and put his nose against the dome using the 10-17 fisheye, uncroped.

post-8758-1240362721.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "Octopus" and I are about to do our own comparison testing of the 10 - 17 FE and 11 - 16 Tokinas in Turks and Caicos starting Saturday and will post some results - since we are both diving D300's with Aquatica housings and diving together (and he invariably hogs all my good shots (just kidding - sort of)) - we will try to do a few dives with one of us using one lens and the other using the opposite lens and shooting the same subjects and see what we get. Will update when we can process the pics and get on-line.

Andy

 

Thas great - hope the diving is good and will look forward to the results...I'm hoping I only want to buy 1 new lens and not 2, especially as I'm just about to take delivery of my new Nexus housing...ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend that you wait for some info on the new nikon 10-24mm before you buy.

If it is the dx equivelent of the 14-24 then that will be the one to get (less distortion and wider field of view that the tokina 11-16)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the tip, Octo.

I just got my new D90 and been looking at what wide angle lens to buy. Watching this thread with great interest.

Looking for a lens that is great both above water and under. Still not decided on whether to get a D90 housing and if so,... which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 different brushes for different effects.

What's the true benefit of using the FE underwater? I used my 10.5mm 2 weeks ago when I was diving Pulau Redang and couldn't figure if it was best for wide-angle or close ups...I had to get very close to a VERY big moray to fill the frame!

 

You got the answer! I think it is the best suited for "Close-Up Wide Angle" photography!!! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather keep the 12-24 and add the 10-17.

 

Nice explanation, and agreed on the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is clear, but focal lengths in fisheye terms mean different angles of coverage vs a rectilinear lens. the 10-17mm fisheye is 180degrees-100degrees, the 11-16mm is 104degrees-82degrees.

 

I love the 11-16mm, my new fav uw wide lens, prefer it over the nikon 12-24mm, and i'm a bit of a nikkor snob. I like the lack of distortion, especially for animals, vs a fisheye. I also shoot the 10.5mm FE and the sigma 15mm FE, for their strengths. Here's a couple shots from today with the tokina 11-16mm (both at 11mm). The first is slightly cropped. The whale was in only 30ft of water, gnarley.

 

3460750611_5561b817e2_o.jpg

 

3460648299_b3cd502759_o.jpg

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

Wow love these shots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...