Wide angle zooms for Nikon D800

[voets 0]

yesterday I was looking into the wide angle zoom lenses that will fit the D800

I came to a list of these 7 lenses with their field of view

 

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 G ED Nano 114 - 84

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm F4.0 G ED VR Nano 107 - 63

Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 AT-X PRO FX Nikon 107 - 77

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM 122 - 84

Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG ASPHERICAL 110 - 72

Nikkor AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED D 100 - 62

Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm F/2.8 D IF-ED 104 - 62

 

They all seem to to have some pro's and con's (weight, price, field of view, build, aperture)

 

For a swim-around lens I think the Nikkor 16-35 f4 would be my top choice at the moment. The 35mm end gives you some zoom options for smaller subjects, F4 is reasonably fast, weight is 685 grams.

 

Curious what people are using for zoom lenses on their Nikon full frame and if they would buy the sam lens again

[Gary.Makai 5]

yesterday I was looking into the wide angle zoom lenses that will fit the D800

I came to a list of these 7 lenses with their field of view

 

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 G ED Nano 114 - 84

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm F4.0 G ED VR Nano 107 - 63

Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 AT-X PRO FX Nikon 107 - 77

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM 122 - 84

Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG ASPHERICAL 110 - 72

Nikkor AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED D 100 - 62

Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm F/2.8 D IF-ED 104 - 62

 

They all seem to to have some pro's and con's (weight, price, field of view, build, aperture)

 

For a swim-around lens I think the Nikkor 16-35 f4 would be my top choice at the moment. The 35mm end gives you some zoom options for smaller subjects, F4 is reasonably fast, weight is 685 grams.

 

Curious what people are using for zoom lenses on their Nikon full frame and if they would buy the sam lens again

 

I have a 16-35 f4 that I will be using with my d800 in a nauticam housing, I also have a 14-24 that I would like to use but am waiting for a compatible Dome.

Also plan on using my tokina 10-17 at 14-17 full frame.

[loftus 41]

Moving on from my D700 to D800, I expect the Sigma 15mm and 16-35 will continue to be my two mainstay wide angle lenses. They work predictably well the 230 Zen for both lenses and a smaller dome possible for the fisheye. Few people I know have been able to get the 14-24 to work well underwater.

[Walt Stearns 47]

Tokina also has an AT-X 17-35 F4 PRO FX lens as well, although it is a bit of a mystery lens as I have not found any formal review on the lens, or have spoken to anyone who has direct experience with it.

[Undertow 31]

16-35mm, love that lens. decent close focusing too (at least behind a 9.25" dome). Had a tough time deciding b/w that and 14-24mm and very glad i got the 16-35mm. the long end is very useful vs 24mm when you can't change lenses UW. I'm quite the 2.8 junkie but not had any issue with f/4 & D700. Tis a heap cheaper too.

 

On a side note, my D800 + 16-35mm surprisingly had inaccurate focus & required an AF fine tune in the camera to fix. Been reading about a mutitude of relatively minor focus issues with the camera and i've had to fine tune for both my 16-35mm & 24-70mm. Anything longer focuses fine. Never had an issue with my D700. Still shooting D700 UW.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[tdpriest 115]

... my D800 + 16-35mm surprisingly had inaccurate focus & required an AF fine tune in the camera to fix...

 

Do you use a diopter?

 

Tim

 

[loftus 41]

On a side note, my D800 + 16-35mm surprisingly had inaccurate focus & required an AF fine tune in the camera to fix. Been reading about a mutitude of relatively minor focus issues with the camera and i've had to fine tune for both my 16-35mm & 24-70mm. Anything longer focuses fine. Never had an issue with my D700. Still shooting D700 UW.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

I think a point to be made is that AF fine tune is probably something that most camera / lens setups can benefit from if one looks close enough, irrespective of camera brand or model.

There's a good section on AF fine tune here. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...pressions.shtml

[jtresfon 2]

Question for the guru's: Why would you use a f/4 16-35mm lens instead of the f/2.8 17-35mm lens apart from the obvious cost factor? I'm still a DX shooter so have no experience of using full frame lenses underwater. Is the 16-35mm better underwater or behind a dome???

 

Rgds

Jean.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Is the 16-35mm better underwater or behind a dome???

 

Yes, just seems to work a lot better. I own both lenses and choose to use the 17-35mm on land and the 16-35mm underwater!

 

Alex

[loftus 41]

Yes, just seems to work a lot better. I own both lenses and choose to use the 17-35mm on land and the 16-35mm underwater!

 

Alex

And no dioptre required which effectively narrows the field a little on the 17-35

[Gary.Makai 5]

For lens calibration you may want to look at FoCal system. fully auto for the canon folks, semiauto for nikon.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/focal.html

[Undertow 31]

Do you use a diopter?

 

Tim

 

 

I do not use a diopter on my D700 + 16-35mm UW behind a 9.25" dome, I don't feel its needed at all. I don't have a housing for the D800.

 

While I'm sure most lenses could benefit from AF fine tune, I'm referring to a serious discrepancy, as in things being noticeably OOF when shooting the 16-35mm or 24-70mm wide open. It takes a major error to have this issue with super wide lenses. The 24-70mm needed a max -20 tune on the D800 & the 16-35mm needed -15 (on a +20 to -20 scale). So far so good with that but I haven't analyzed it in detail, I just shoot & the pics now look in focus.

 

To add to the original poster's question, I would only use top nikon glass to resolve the detail & DR the D800's capable of (which is incredible). To use anything less I think would be an insult to the camera and render the extra resolution/DR pointless. I don't know all those lenses (admittedly I was surprised at the quality of the DX Tokina 11-16/2.8 on my D300) but I'd never put a consumer quality variable aperture zoom on the D800. I would at the very least narrow that list down to the 14-24mm, 16-35mm and possibly the Tok 16-28mm/2.8 if it proves itself like the DX 11-16mm did. Cheers,

 

Chris

[tdpriest 115]

OK: preliminary trials (in the bath - just watch Wimbledon to see what British conditions are like this "summer") show the Nikon 16-35mm working behind the Anthis/Nexus custom 12-24mm port with a 30mm extension; I haven't worked out if its better with the bare lens or a +3D diopter. The bare dome seems to accommodate the Sigma 15mm with a Kenko teleconverter.

 

Tim

[tdpriest 115]

Nikon D800, Nauticam NA-D800, Sigma 15mm, Tokina x1.5 T/C, Nexus 12-24mm port. ISO 1600, illuminated by a single Sola 600:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tim

 

[alexiscoram 1]

16-35mm, love that lens. decent close focusing too (at least behind a 9.25" dome). Had a tough time deciding b/w that and 14-24mm and very glad i got the 16-35mm. the long end is very useful vs 24mm when you can't change lenses UW. I'm quite the 2.8 junkie but not had any issue with f/4 & D700. Tis a heap cheaper too.

 

On a side note, my D800 + 16-35mm surprisingly had inaccurate focus & required an AF fine tune in the camera to fix. Been reading about a mutitude of relatively minor focus issues with the camera and i've had to fine tune for both my 16-35mm & 24-70mm. Anything longer focuses fine. Never had an issue with my D700. Still shooting D700 UW.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

Hey Chris - it looks like you have the D700 and D800 - I'm curious about your thoughts on which performs better underwater or what the major differences are regarding image quality. Do you see more blur with the D800 because of the MPs? I have the D700 but considering the upgrade (if it is an upgrade). Thanks

[voets 0]

lens lust is becoming almost unbearable ....

so before I hit the order button

 

will the Nikon 16-35 f4 work behind the hugyfot fisheye dome (174mm) ?

with a proper extension ofcourse

or do I need a diopter? or a different dome ?

[Udo van Dongen 5]

lens lust is becoming almost unbearable ....

so before I hit the order button

 

will the Nikon 16-35 f4 work behind the hugyfot fisheye dome (174mm) ?

with a proper extension ofcourse

or do I need a diopter? or a different dome ?

 

It's listed on the Hugyfot website: you need a 60 mm extension ring with the Hugyfot domeport:

 

http://hugyfot.com/P...ikon Lenzes.pdf

 

There's no need for a diopter with a closest focussing distance of 28 cm i think

 

Udo

Edited September 18, 2012 by Udo van Dongen

[eyu 26]

Yes, just seems to work a lot better. I own both lenses and choose to use the 17-35mm on land and the 16-35mm underwater!

 

Alex

 

Is the difference that noticable between the 16-35 mm vs the 17-35 mm.

 

I have the 17-35 mm f 2.8 that I was planning to use with my D800.

 

Elmer

Edited September 18, 2012 by eyu

[clairvoyant 0]

 

 

Is the difference that noticable between the 16-35 mm vs the 17-35 mm.

 

I have the 17-35 mm f 2.8 that I was planning to use with my D800.

 

Elmer

 

 

I'm using D700 & 17-35 with Zen 230 port but I still have problem with soft focus around the edge of my frame. Do I need diopter to solve the soft focus?

[ChrigelKarrer 52]

clairvoyant

problems with soft corners can be nasty to tackle down.

If you have a good uw photo shop near or a photographer with the same housing you can do some tests:

- using a additional ring to set the dome further away to its maximum before vignetting occurs

- use high f-stops

- using a different dome with a different curvature

- using the right power diopter

I used a +3 diopter on my Ikelite housing but i was not really happy with it for quality reasons and still, but still soft corners

Chris

[tdpriest 115]

I'm using D700 & 17-35 with Zen 230 port but I still have problem with soft focus around the edge of my frame. Do I need diopter to solve the soft focus?

 

Unfortunately, if I understand the thread properly, that might be as good as it gets. The 16-35mm, despite being a less well-specified lens, seems to work better behind a dome.

[loftus 41]

Unfortunately, if I understand the thread properly, that might be as good as it gets. The 16-35mm, despite being a less well-specified lens, seems to work better behind a dome.

By less well specified, do you mean just the maximum aperture? In other respects it is probably better 'specified' particularly for digital. Remember the 17-35 was developed in the film days. The reason the 16-35 behaves better behind a dome may have to do with the way the light is collated more specifically for digital sensors. I'm not sure I see the real differences topside between the 2 lenses, and in fact gave my 17-35 to a friend and don't miss it. The 16-35 also has VR.

Edited October 26, 2012 by loftus

[tdpriest 115]

By less well specified, do you mean just the maximum aperture?

 

Basically, although the construction of the 17-35 seems a little more rugged, too. You're right about the rest, the 16-35mm seems to be the one to house, even if it's not without problems and needs a big dome.

[pdemaagt 6]

Does anybody have experience with the Sea@SEA D800 housing and the best extension to use with the S&S fisheye domeport for the nikon 16-35?

Peter

[kmsellin 2]

Hi pdemaagt,

 

I have heard two person who use 40mm + 40mm extension rings behind the big S&S fisheye 240 domeport. If I am not wrong S&S have also aproved this combo know! The pictures I have seen with this setup is perfect!

Anyone know if someone use Sea&Sea Optical domeport and the sigma 15mm fisheye direct on the MDX800 housing without extensions? Would be nice if it works without vignetting.