Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My problem with the 16mm Nikkor on the D700 is that it doesn't focus close enough. A friend has sent me a tantalising picture of the inside of his toilet bowl(?) (I wish he'd cleaned it more thoroughly first) saying it was taken with the point-of-focus one inch from the dome. He has a 1-dioptre lens fitted to the back of the 16mm lens. He hasn't answered my e-mails since so I'll ask you.

What is the maximum distance from the dome that can be pulled into focus with this set-up? Does anyone have experience of this? Does simply removing the filter allow the lens to focus closer? Can I still get the shot of the passing oceanic white-tip if I go in so set up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

There is some info on minimum focus of various lenses here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34664&hl=

 

The Nikon 16mm will be fine for an oceanic - it focuses to within about 10cm of the dome. Assuming you can still find some in the Red Sea, apparently 2010 has been a bad year for oceanics.

 

Removing the filter only makes a difference of a couple of cms to the minimum focus. It is worth doing, but the Nikon 16mm still remains considerably inferior to the Sigma 15mm in this respect.

 

Adding an additional dioptre (0.5 or 1) does help the 16mm, unless of course you surface and see a wonderful split level opportunity!

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

250mm for the Nikon is still pretty close especially for subjects like sharks. Probably about 6" in front of the dome. How deep is your toilet John?

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My D700 is close to the end of its life now and is a day or twos shooting away from 100,000 (almost entirely) underwater frames exposed! One or two have come out!

I was expecting to go through the barrier shooting the salmon in British Colombia, this week (but having done so well, we decided to use our final day on topside, which reduced my shot count considerably).

 

Anyway, throughout my D700s life I have owned both the Sigma 15mm and Nikon 16mm - and find I have reasons to own both. I would say that the Sigma 15mm gets about twice the work of the Nikon 16mm, mainly because of the close focus ability, but I prefer the Nikon when shooting wide angle that will not require super close focus. Perhaps the biggest advantage of the Nikon is much better at resisting flare when shooting into the sun. This thread shows the usage I have had from the lenses (these stats also include three trips I shot UW with the D3):

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37822

 

And shows that there is a role for both lenses. Given their small size and weight, I often travel with both.

 

Alex

 

p.s. I only took one fisheye for the salmon. And when I can only take one it is usually the Sigma (except for trips to the sunny Red Sea)! BTW, this is frame 98,233 from my D700.

 

post-713-1287967790.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh Alex, with all these very lovely pictures, where do you find enough of the demand to soak up what you produce?

Edited by John Bantin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just ordered a Sigma 15mm !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I just ordered a Sigma 15mm !

It only cost me £300 plus my immaculate 16mm Nikkor in p-ex. I guess I'm paying for not doing enough research first. Funnily enough, this is a repeat of exchanging the Nikon 10.5 for the Tokina 10-17. Doh!

Edited by John Bantin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...