Is this the FX eqivalent of the DX10-17?

[John Bantin 101]

I am constantly reverting back to DX simply because I like the Tokina 10-17. Is this the lens I'm looking for for use with my D700? Anyone used it yet? http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10070501...mnikoncanon.asp

[loftus 42]

John,

This is a rectilinear lens like the Nikon 16-35, 14-24, or 17-35, so won't replace the 10-17 on FX unfortunately. Only way to come close is to use your 10-17 with a 1.4 or 1.5 TC as I described previously here on WP. It works well in good light light near the surface, but I find the viewfinder a little dark for other stuff because of the 1 stop aperture loss.

[Viz'art 24]

From what I know it is more akin to a super wide rectilinear than a Fisheye

[aussie 0]

It's not a fish eye, so it's not the 'equivalent' of the 10-17. Doesn't mean if couldn't be a good underwater lens of course

[DuikKees 1]

You still can use the 10-17 on FF. If you shave off the hood, there is no vingetting from 13mm.

Just do a Google on "lens shave 10-17" and you will find what you need.

http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.html

 

Good luck shaving

[loftus 42]

You still can use the 10-17 on FF. If you shave off the hood, there is no vingetting from 13mm.

Just do a Google on "lens shave 10-17" and you will find what you need.

http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.html

 

Good luck shaving

I like that; anyone know someone in the US that does that?

[360pano 0]

Thank you admin for delete my post....?

[Don Silcock 14]

Interesting thread.... just sent off my 10-17 to get "shaved" so that I can try this out on my D700

[loftus 42]

It's not a fish eye, so it's not the 'equivalent' of the 10-17. Doesn't mean if couldn't be a good underwater lens of course

This lens does look like the Nikon 14-24 with a curved front lens element and from what I can see will not take a diopter, that could be a problem behind a dome.

If this is the case, the new Nikon 16-35 may be a better alternative as it is not only able to take a diopter, but actually seems to work well behind my Subal dome without one.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Just a quick note for those planning on shaving lenses - do note that the hoods are on their for a reason. When you cut the hood off it greatly increases the chances of unsightly flare when the sun is in your frame. It is not a case of getting something for nothing.

 

Alex

 

p.s. BTW, by far the best wide angle rectilinear I have used UNDERWATER on FX nikon is the new 16-35mm (but I am yet to test this new Tokina). I am using this with the Zen 230 dome and it is hugely impressive. When I was in Norway, I was showing Espen Rekdal (who joined us to give a guest lecture) the raw files I had shot that day with the 16-35mm for CFWA and we were pixel peeping the corner sharpness and his immediate comment was "that's a lot better than the 10-17mm is in the corners".

[John Bantin 101]

OK I'm hooked now. It's time I grew up and used my D700 on every trip (before it is discontinued!). I now have to decide which lens 16-35 f/4 or the 14-24 f2.8 or the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. Anyone used the wider aperture lenses and what extension will I need with the Hugyfot fish-eye port?

Edited October 2, 2010 by John Bantin

[loftus 42]

OK I'm hooked now. It's time I grew up and used my D700 on every trip (before it is discontinued!). I now have to decide which lens 16-35 f/4 or the 14-24 f2.8 or the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. Anyone used the wider aperture lenses and what extension will I need with the Hugyfot fish-eye port?

John,

As I mentioned I agree with Alex on the Nikon 16-35, I'm very pleased with my results, and an added benefit is no diopter required. Though some people have reported decent results behind a dome with the 14-24, most have not. The 16-35 does need a long extension, I think mine on the Subal is 60mm. The 16-35 Nikon is $400 less than the 14-24. dppreview lists the US price for the Tokina at $1400 about the same price as the 16-35.

I can't see any advantage of the Tokina at this point particularly as 2.8 will probably not be useable for corner sharpness underwater. The Tokina is also a little shorter on the long end, and if it does need a diopter you are SOOL.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

John,

As I mentioned I agree with Alex on the Nikon 16-35, I'm very pleased with my results, and an added benefit is no diopter required. Though some people have reported decent results behind a dome with the 14-24, most have not. The 16-35 does need a long extension, I think mine on the Subal is 60mm. The 16-35 Nikon is $400 less than the 14-24. dppreview lists the US price for the Tokina at $1400 about the same price as the 16-35.

I can't see any advantage of the Tokina at this point particularly as 2.8 will probably not be useable for corner sharpness underwater. The Tokina is also a little shorter on the long end, and if it does need a diopter you are SOOL.

 

Also the 16-35mm Nikkor has a stabiliser - which I think is more useful for an underwater photographer than an F2.8. lens, because it allows us to stop the lens down, fill with flash and use the stabiliser to help the background sharpness. Although I have not done any back to back tests of this to see how significant it is.

 

I was shooting 1/8th sec exposures in Norway (ISO 800, f8-f11, with flash fill foregrounds) and was able to get a high return rate of background sharpness with the 16-35mm. I am planning a review of the lens, when I get a chance.

 

Alex

[John Bantin 101]

Also the 16-35mm Nikkor has a stabiliser - which I think is more useful for an underwater photographer than an F2.8. lens, because it allows us to stop the lens down, fill with flash and use the stabiliser to help the background sharpness. Although I have not done any back to back tests of this to see how significant it is.

 

I was shooting 1/8th sec exposures in Norway (ISO 800, f8-f11, with flash fill foregrounds) and was able to get a high return rate of background sharpness with the 16-35mm. I am planning a review of the lens, when I get a chance.

 

Alex

 

 

I guess the only appeal of the f2.8 is the brighter viewing screen. (You are talking to an older person here!)

[loftus 42]

I guess the only appeal of the f2.8 is the brighter viewing screen. (You are talking to an older person here!)

John you always shoot from the hip anyway...

[Walt Stearns 51]

There was once a SMCPF Fisheye Zoom 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 made by Pentax for 35mm film cameras, unfortunately no one as decided to resurrect it.

[Drew 0]

I guess the only appeal of the f2.8 is the brighter viewing screen. (You are talking to an older person here!)

 

It can be also better for AF and for topside, it gives you more options for composition. For me, @ $1400, it has to function well on top as well as uw.

 

John, if I'm not mistaken, the Hugyfot big dome isn't very large. With any rectilinear lens with a focal length under 20mm, I think the corners are going to be soft when used with a dome smaller than 200mm. Alex's test is with a 230mm dome. So I'd be careful about lens choice.

[John Bantin 101]

It can be also better for AF and for topside, it gives you more options for composition. For me, @ $1400, it has to function well on top as well as uw.

 

John, if I'm not mistaken, the Hugyfot big dome isn't very large. With any rectilinear lens with a focal length under 20mm, I think the corners are going to be soft when used with a dome smaller than 200mm. Alex's test is with a 230mm dome. So I'd be careful about lens choice.

 

 

Yes, it's only 174mm. Thanks.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

That's a good point, Drew.

 

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of FX over DX is not the lack of a 10-17mm, but the need for bigger domes and bigger strobes, just to get back to DX levels of corner sharpness and depth of field. And all that means extra luggage weight and a bigger rig to push about underwater.

 

Alex

[John Bantin 101]

That's a good point, Drew.

 

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of FX over DX is not the lack of a 10-17mm, but the need for bigger domes and bigger strobes, just to get back to DX levels of corner sharpness and depth of field. And all that means extra luggage weight and a bigger rig to push about underwater.

 

Alex

 

D700, 16m Nikkor and Hugyfot housing for sale!

[loftus 42]

D700, 16m Nikkor and Hugyfot housing for sale!

LOL. I do think my next 'travel' rig will be DX as well, though I'm likely to stay with FX for pool work.

Edited October 4, 2010 by loftus

[Alex_Mustard 0]

LOL. I do think my next 'travel' rig will be DX as well, though I'm likely to stay with FX for pool work.

 

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

 

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

 

Alex

[John Bantin 101]

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

 

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

 

Alex

 

 

I've just shot some studio shots of compacts and their housings for a feature in our mag. and I used an old D200 (I've got a safe full of old stuff) with the 60 Micro Nikkor and studio flash and the results are too good to be true. The FX is great for high ISO ambient light stuff but, it's back to DX if I've got flash to use, for me.

 

Just my (painfully acquired) opinion. Don't listen to me. I'm just a grumpy old sod!

[loftus 42]

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

 

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

 

Alex

That's an interesting thought but I don't think so myself. Previously DX was thought to be less of a professional format than FX, but I think it's becoming clear that there is a place in the semi-pro and pro lineup for DX and for FX. Even topside these issues are apparent; for example the longer reach of lenses with DX for wildlife. With both having advantages and disadvantages depending on the shooting situation.( Just as Canon have the D and DS series) I think the D7000 leaves just enough out to warrant a higher end DX camera, and I find it hard to believe that Nikon will not make an FX camera to challenge the 5DMkII (sure to be MKIII by the time the Nikon D700 upgrade comes out.)

Edited October 4, 2010 by loftus

[Drew 0]

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of FX over DX is not the lack of a 10-17mm, but the need for bigger domes and bigger strobes, just to get back to DX levels of corner sharpness and depth of field. And all that means extra luggage weight and a bigger rig to push about underwater.

 

Definitely so Alex. Yet even you jumped onto the FX bandwagon without any goading.

 

A big glass dome is a pain to travel with, but think of the positives. Besides sharper corners, a heavy glass balances out the housing, making it very useful for ViDSLR to shoot video, with a more stable housing, instead of battling a camera which wants to go dome up all the time.

Big strobes are also a pain, but the recharge rate is almost always faster than the smaller ones, so more power and fps, a boon for shooting action. Plus the aluminum housed strobes tend to be tougher and can take more punishment. I've drowned 3 Inons over the years because the plastic cracked somewhere.

 

Don't forget that FX will bring in the megapixels. Maybe not now for Nikon users (except D3x users), but it's coming. Now whether you need 20+mp is another discussion altogether . The closer you can get to the subject, the less resolution matters. And the added DOF with DX (est 1.5 stops maybe) gives wide angle shooters fewer focus issues, especially for video.