Nikkor 12-24 or Nikkor 10-24?

[calypso3 2]

I am new to this forum. I go underwater for more than 41 years and underwater photographer for 20 years. I have a Nikon D300 in Sealux CD300 UW housing. Objectives: Nikkor 10.5 DX and sigma 17-70 macro. I want to buy a wide angle zoom and are very torn between this two: Nikkor 12-24 f4 or Nikkor 10-24 f3 ,5-4, 5. Some of you advise me on the right choice? thanks

 

Claudio Merli

[Deep6 7]

I am new to this forum. I go underwater for more than 41 years and underwater photographer for 20 years. I have a Nikon D300 in Sealux CD300 UW housing. Objectives: Nikkor 10.5 DX and sigma 17-70 macro. I want to buy a wide angle zoom and are very torn between this two: Nikkor 12-24 f4 or Nikkor 10-24 f3 ,5-4, 5. Some of you advise me on the right choice? thanks

 

Claudio Merli

Hi Claudio,

Welcome to the form. I have the older 12-24 lens and used it in a 170mm dome. This required a +4 diopter to sharpen the edges. I now prefer the Tokina 10-17 FE with and without a 1.4X TC and use the Bare Dome (mini 4.33 inch). The 10-24 focuses closer, so you may not need a diopter or can use a larger dome port.

 

I will offer my Nikkor 12-24 for sale soon.

Bob

[PeteAtkinson 45]

I have 12-24 (for sale) which is reckoned to be a bit more pro-build than the 10-24. I also have a Sigma 8-16 (for sale) which I prefer above water to the 12-24. I agree that the 12-24 benefits from a dioptre underwater to get better corners.

[Aussiebyron 57]

What about the Tokina 10-17mm FE?

 

Regards Mark

[JimSwims 31]

Can anyone enlighten if they have used the 10-24mm with or without the addition of diopter.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[John Bantin 101]

I was very disappointed with the 12-24 for close focus and side-to-side sharpness when I had one. The lens to get for underwater use with DX is without doubt the Tokina 10-17.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

As others have said, the 12-24mm benefits a dioptre, but with one it works well.

 

 

I have done back to back tests of the 10-24 and 12-24mm without dioptres and the 10-24mm performed better in the pool.

 

I also agree with others that the 10-17mm fisheye is the best choice. Although is wider.

 

Alex

[calypso3 2]

I already have the Nikkor DX 10.5, which I consider a great piece of equipment, so the Tokina 10-17 would be almost superfluous ... I would like a wide angle zoom, not a fisheye. However, for some your answer and also some online test now I am convinced that the 10-24 is slightly better than the 12-24 ...Thanks

[Nicool 26]

Hi,

I have used both 12-24 & 10-24 on D300, and much prefer the 10-24, due to its wider angle of shooting, and most importantly its closer focus (I also enjoy this top-side).

The 10-17 is interesting too, provided you can get close enough to your subjects.

Personally I didn't find myself limited by the 10-24, but maybe because I am not experienced enough to enjoy the benefits of the 10-17 (i.e. to be close enough to subjects).

[ChrigelKarrer 52]

I used on my D90 and the D700 successful the Tokina 12-24 mm and i consider this lens as a nice value for the €€€.

This lens is also very nice to use above the water as it is a rectilinear lens, thus almost no distortion occur.

Rectilinear zoom lenses can be difficult to fit in the right dome to avoid or lower the problems with soft corners and i had to use

a +3 diopter on my D90 Ikelite rig.

Chris

[ehanauer 37]

The 12-24 is my go to lens for sharks, whales, and big critters. Soft corners are no problem in blue water. No fisheye distortion.

 

I use a +2 diopter and an 8 inch dome.

[pdemaagt 6]

I went from 12-24 to the 10-24. I am not using a dioptre. I think it is acceptable (at least to me)

[WanderingBob 2]

On 3/29/2013 at 2:03 AM, pdemaagt said:

I went from 12-24 to the 10-24. I am not using a dioptre. I think it is acceptable (at least to me)

Is there any difference in image quality?  Or just a bit wider FOV?