Jump to content
cor

14mm nikon

Recommended Posts

I recently had a discussion with someone on a liveaboard concerning the existence of a 14mm nikon lens. I was sure one existed, he said it didnt. So look and behold, one exists :lol:

 

Has anyone tried this lens recently with a modern SLR like a D3/D700? I read some threads on here that its not that great of a choice underwater. How would it compare to the 14-24? What lens are nikon people using these days for FF cameras? 16mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14-24 is better I think, but harder to put uw because it is bigger...

Most housing makers have a config. for the prime 14 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently had a discussion with someone on a liveaboard concerning the existence of a 14mm nikon lens. I was sure one existed, he said it didnt. So look and behold, one exists :lol:

 

Has anyone tried this lens recently with a modern SLR like a D3/D700? I read some threads on here that its not that great of a choice underwater. How would it compare to the 14-24? What lens are nikon people using these days for FF cameras? 16mm?

 

 

Yup there is a 14/2.8 D-type AF lens. I have used one extensively with a D2X UW (making it is a 21mm equivalent). Works quite well. I have the 14-24 but as it does not fit (diameter too large) I have used it UW with my present gear. There is a thread on it from a few months ago. I would say the new lens is particularly better for its flare resistance. Have hardly used the 14 prime above water however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a FF, it depends on what you want to shoot.

-nikkor 16mm AF f/2.8D fisheye is a great uw lens

-nikkor 18mm AF f/2.8D rectilinear another great uw lens

-nikkor 17-35mm AF-S f/2.8D rectilinear very flexible

-nikkor 24mm AF f/2.8D lots of fun for sealion shots

 

I shot all those with film behind an 8" dome.

 

I haven't shot the nikkor 14mm AF f/2.8D.

(it is a FF lens; but, it was probably designed with 1.5x crop factor in mind,

21mm is very close to 20mm which behind a dome has about the same coverage as the nikonos 15mm)

 

There are wetpixel threads covering the nikkor 14-24mm.

I would bet, the 14-24mm beats the 14mm for image quality. It trumps it completely for flexibility.

 

I don't know if you would need a huge(9.25"), high-quality, glass dome to make the 14mm and 14-24mm reach their full potential.

 

Take Care,

ChrisS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Sigma 14/2.8 as well. I tried the Nikon version on a D200 in a Hugyfot housing, but couldn't justify the cost when I compared it to cheaper alternatives (zooms). Then I might not have had it properly set-up, as I had only a FE-dome port without extensions at the time of the test.

 

christian

Edited by Christian K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a AF-D 14mm and had it for actually a long time before I ever got a digital camera (I go way back to the Nikon E2 1.2 million pixel DSLR). Its a fair lens on a DX format, an exceptional one on film and a soso one on FX format, a lot of light fall off on the edge, you can even tell on the rear LCD when shooting a D3 with both the new AF-S 12-24 and the older AF-D 14mm, the older has a noticeable circular darkness, eyballed I would say anywhere to 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop darker

 

I still shoot DX and i'm cool with it, but If I was FX then it would be a paperweight.

Edited by Viz'art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For basic information - 14mm f2.8 fixed focal length lenses for Nikon cameras have been made by both Sigma and Nikon. And also, I believe by Tamron. Canon has also made several versions of a 14mm f2.8 lens. ALL of these 14mm lenses were made originally for full-frame (FX in Nikon terminology) cameras, and in most cases made for film cameras prior to the existence of full-frame digital cameras.

 

I have been a fan of this focal length lens as an excellent lens for over/under shots. I posted my first "pool test of and over/under shot with the 14-24mm lens some months ago as well as several much older over/under shots taken with Sigma's previous 14mm f3.5.

 

There have been some significant differences between the 14mm lenses I have owned, to which I recently added Nikon's 14-24mm f2.8. The Sigma 14mm f2.8 lens used their HSM focusing, Sigma's equivalent to Nikon's AFS. This made it very easy to switch between manually focusing and auto-focusing the lens when you wanted to do this. This (AFS or HSM) is very useful if you have a housing, like my Seacams, which make switching between manual and autofocus VERY DIFFICULT to IMPOSSIBLE when you are at any significant depth. The Sigma 14mm needs only a single manual focusing gear on the lens to accomplish this with ease. To the best of my knowledge, Sigma no longer makes their 14mm f2.8 lens. When it was available, the Sigma 14mm f2.8 could be bought for about US$600.

 

The Nikon 14mm f2.8 IS NOT AFS and has a manual-autofocus selector switch similar to the one on older models of Nikon's 60mm and 105mm Micro-Nikkors. I was able to build a complex pair of gears to do this with the Seacam housing. My opinion, based on my single Sigma 14mm lens, and my single Nikon 14mm lens, is that the Nikon 14mm lens has slightly better edge sharpness and better flare characteristics when the sun is in the frame, or just beyond it. Having a lens shade on your dome port that is made specifically for use with the 14mm can make a big difference in flare control.

 

While I haven't actually shot comparison shots, at the same place and same time, I believe the new 14-24mm lens is as sharp at 14mm as the fixed focal length 14mm Nikkor. 14-24mm shots with the sun actually in the picture seem to show more of the bright little "sunspots" than does the 14mm fixed focal length lens. This may be due to the fact that the zoom has more elements and larger front elements. I like the versatility of the 14-24mm zoom and feel it is a good back-up to my 17-35mm f2.8 for general underwater shooting in addition to giving me the 14mm wide end for over/under shooting. Overall, however, I feel the 17-35mm lens is more versatile for general wide shooting and would carry only that lens if I had to travel very light.

 

At some point in the near future, I will probably sell both my Nikon and Sigma 14mm f2.8 lenses along with gears for use with Seacam housings. Anyone interested?

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to use the Sigma 14mm lens on film cameras both above and below water. It was a good enough lens in the days of film but I struggled to get it to work well underwater and the corners were never really as satisfactory as I would have liked - but this is typical of ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) rectilinear lenses. I suspect that the Nikon 14mm would be very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cor,

 

I remember this lens from the film days. It was the one landscape photogs lusted for, but often avoided due to budget considerations. I recall that the Canon 14mm was considered better than Nikon's version.

 

Bjorn Rorslett has a Review of the lens. Pretty much what Jean said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Cor,

 

I remember this lens from the film days. It was the one landscape photogs lusted for, but often avoided due to budget considerations. I recall that the Canon 14mm was considered better than Nikon's version.

 

Bjorn Rorslett has a Review of the lens. Pretty much what Jean said.

 

Here is a shot of the 14mm Nikkor from the film days.

 

post-630-1262014290.jpg

 

Corners were pretty grim on film and no doubt they are as bad, if not worse, on full frame digital sensors. No EXIF data from my F100, but Velvia 50 in that kind of light and a shutter speed for an over/under probably put it around F-8. F-16 would be better for that lens, probably.

 

BTW, while this image doesn't show it because the sun is behind me, Jean is right about the flare from this lens being a bit excessive.

Edited by StephenFrink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I did forget to mention that even in the film days, it had some corners issues, when top side it was quite stellar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So strange. This was Newbert's favorite lens, and i dont recall seeing such bad corners on his images. Maybe there was something to the subeyes afterall :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So strange. This was Newbert's favorite lens, and i dont recall seeing such bad corners on his images. Maybe there was something to the subeyes afterall ;)

 

Hey guys,

 

I'm in the process of changing over from a D200 to the D3s. I have been using the Nikon 10.5 mm for the last number of years, but now need to look at my options for FX lens.

 

I am very unsure on which lens would be best suited and would compare best to what I was using on my D200?

 

Any advice would be great...

 

Chat soon,

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recommend you look at the Sigma 15mm

Hey Jean,

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

Chat soon,

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...