What WA rectiliner lens

[Scotttyd 0]

So, after reading a lot here I thought I was going to get the toktina 10-17 lense for WA photo. After reading

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/underwat...tography-lenses

I am starting to think it may not be best for me. Much of my WA will be here in North Carolina taking wreck photos where the fisheye look is not desirable. Would I be better off getting a rectiliner lens - if so, which one? I am shooting a d7000 with probably a nauticam housing.

[Drew 0]

The Sigma 8-16mm is a great rectilinear lens.

[davephdv 0]

I may be the only one, but I really like the Nikon 12-24.

 

Except for the Tokina 10-17 you mentioned, I almost always find the Nikon lenses better than third party lenses.

[Scotttyd 0]

if i was to use the 10-17 Toktina - and took pictures of the wrecks here in NC (think the U-352) - would I get the fisheye effect? Or should I stick to getting a rectilinear?

[ghnouer 0]

Another option is Tokina 11-16mm.

 

GHN

[Deep6 7]

Another option is Tokina 11-16mm.

 

GHN

Fast f/2.8 and a good price, BUT min. focus is 30 cm (~12"). Would require a huge dome and or a diopter. JMHO.

Bob

[blibecap 29]

Another option would be to purchase the Tokina 10-17 and use the automatic feature of dxo optics pro to straighten the images.

[Andy Morrison 1]

I shoot mostly wrecks and love using the 10-17. You can control the fisheye effect from a little to a lot depending on which end of the focal length you're using, how close you are to the wreck and how much you angle the camera up, down, left or right in relation to a nearby straight line.

[Balrog 5]

I like the Tokina 11-16: a crisp lens and works well behind an 8" dome. A +2 dioptre helps you get closer but won't focus to infinity on under/over shots.

For the same numbers, rectilinears are not as wide as equivalent fisheyes.

[adamhanlon 0]

I have been shooting with a Sigma 8-16mm and really like it. The only proviso is that it does need a big dome (9"+) to get acceptable corner sharpness.

 

Saying that, I also use a Tokina 10-17 and like it very much too. I think that fisheye lenses are used so much underwater now that the look that rectilinear lenses give allows for a different perspective.

 

Adam

[jcclink 8]

I've also been very happy with my 12-24mm. Corner sharpness can be controlled with a diopter.

[loftus 42]

A lens that has not been mentioned here that some DX shooters I know prefer to the 12-24 underwater, is the Nikon 10-24.

[hult 0]

I shoot mostly wrecks and love using the 10-17. You can control the fisheye effect from a little to a lot depending on which end of the focal length you're using, how close you are to the wreck and how much you angle the camera up, down, left or right in relation to a nearby straight line.

[hult 0]

So, after reading a lot here I thought I was going to get the toktina 10-17 lense for WA photo. After reading

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/underwat...tography-lenses

I am starting to think it may not be best for me. Much of my WA will be here in North Carolina taking wreck photos where the fisheye look is not desirable. Would I be better off getting a rectiliner lens - if so, which one? I am shooting a d7000 with probably a nauticam housing.

 

 

I have both the Nikon DX 10-24mm rectilinear and the Tokina HX 10-17mm Fish Eye.

 

One can rectify ( straighten, 'correct') the FE image with one click in Lightroom 3.5 (or Photoshop) .

 

The images shown ( top left, bottom) were taken with a D7000 on a tripod from the same location, with 10-24 and 10-17 FE lenses at 10mm.

 

The 'corrected' 10mm FE image (top right) is wider than that of the rectilinear lens and, to my eye, just as straight.

 

So I'd definitely choose the FE if it were my only UW wideangle.

 

Topside shooting is a different matter ;-)

 

HTH ... Marc

Edited February 15, 2012 by hult