Nauticam D800 - wide-angle lenses and domes

[christianloader 0]

Hi all,

 

I've recently just upgraded to a Nikon D800 with Nauticam housing.

I've only done a few dives with the new rig so far, unfortunately in pretty terrible viz, but have noticed a couple of issues with my wide-angle set-ups:

 

- Nikon 17-35mm, & Nauticam 9" optical glass dome & 70mm ext ring. - corner sharpness is quite poor.

- Tokina 10-17mm & Kenko 1.4x teleconverter, with Nauticam mini dome (for the 10-17) & 20mm ext ring - slight vignetting visible at its widest focal length.

 

Is anyone using the same lenses as me but with different dome ports? how do you like the results?

Is anyone using a Nikon 16mm fisheye on a D800? How does it compare to a 10-17 with a 1.4xTC?

 

The 2 images attached: Nikon 17-35mm, Nauticam 9" optical glass dome & 70mm ext ring, 17mm, 1/200s, f9, ISO160, natural light. (The 2nd image shows the blur in the bottom-left corner of the 1st image).

My general question to any D800 users (ideally, Nauticam users too) is, which wide-angle set-up do you find gives you the best results in terms of corner sharpness?

 

Any advice is much appreciated,

 

Cheers,

Christian

 

note to Alex Mustard: i read in a previous D800 post last year you may have written a piece discussing wide-angle lenses and domes for FX cameras? If you have, i'd love to have a read as i'm sure you have the magic answers! thanks.

 

[MATT S 8]

Hey Christian,

 

I am using a d800 in a Nauticam with the 16-35 behind the 9" glass dome. I find this setup works well, but you still need to stop down to get the best results.

 

Have you tried shooting at say f 11 ?

[John Bantin 101]

I use the 15mm Sigma and get pictures sharp as a tack from corner to corner with both the Hugyfot acrylic dome and the Sea & Sea optical glass dome. It must be lens related.

[Drew 0]

Yo Chris

The Tokina +1.4x is still too wide for a D800. You need to get it to 11mm for no vignetting.

 

As for the 17-35, if I remember it had a bit of field curvature so try going to f11 at least.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

 

note to Alex Mustard: i read in a previous D800 post last year you may have written a piece discussing wide-angle lenses and domes for FX cameras? If you have, i'd love to have a read as i'm sure you have the magic answers! thanks.

 

 

I am sure I have. But we don't have a reviews listing anymore on Wetpixel - so these things are a pain to find! I'll have a look.

 

Alex

[Alex_Mustard 0]

There is some stuff here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46334&page=9

 

 

And also here:

http://wetpixel.com/articles/review-and-field-notes-subal-nd4/P3

 

I don't see the point in using the 10-17mm and a TC on the D800 - as you are filling your harddrives up with 36MP files, which are way off what can really be achieved in terms of resolution with that file size. A waste of space. But it will work until funds are available to purchase a Sigma 15mm.

 

I use the Nikon 16mm preferentially over the Sigma 15mm most of the time. But I do own both and use both. Each has merits, but there is little point in owning both.

 

Alex

[John Bantin 101]

I used to have both but I found that I had to decide on one. I guess, Alex, you have your camera caddy following along behind with a second camera with the other lens.

[christianloader 0]

Thanks for your help guys! Much appreciated. It seems the Sigma 15mm is the way to go. I'll try out the 17-35 again today and tomorrow, and will shoot at f11+ and see if the corner sharpness improves. Thanks for those links Alex, great stuff.

[Cp 29]

Hi Christian,

 

We've found the Nikon 16-35/f4 to be perform a bit better than the 17-35/f2.8 in terms of corner sharpness. Might be something to keep in mind if you want to shoot rectilinear as opposed to going with the fisheyes, i.e. Sigma 15mm or Nikon 16mm.

 

Cheers,

Cp

[christianloader 0]

Here's how it looks in the pool: 1/125s, f11, ISO250

 

 

[christianloader 0]

And here's 2 more shots at f13 with the nikon 17-35mm at 17mm 1/125 ISO250.

[calypso3 2]

A possible option could be the new Nikkor AF-S 18-35 f3.5-4.5 G ED. Small and lightweight, economical. We read of good optical and construction quality, but nothing yet on UW use....

[Fiona Ayerst 0]

I am having exactly the same issue with the same lens. Its really soft around all edges underwater and I have even tried to use a dome extender which didn't help. Also the edges are soft no matter the aperture. I am shooting a D800 with a nauticam housing and a Zen dome port 8 inch optical glass. Did you ever find a suitable resolution to your query ? I am currently shooting the nikon 16 mm fisheye but I am looking for a good rectilinear that will work with this set up and doesn't have those super soft edges. Ideally I'd like something with a bit of a zoom but would look at a prime lens longer than 20 mm with close focusing distance capability. I could post images but they all look just like yours- super soft around the edges and nice and sharp in the centre. thanks Fiona

[adamhanlon 0]

Hi Fiona,

 

The best option for rectilinear wide angle on the Nikon FX is probably the Nikon 16-35mm f4 with a 9" dome and a 70mm extension. I combine it with a Sea&Sea 16-35mm correction lens, and get acceptable corner sharpness down to around f8 or so.

 

The other option is the Tokina 17mm. These are only available second hand now, but they work pretty well down to f8, even with 7"domes.

 

The 17-35mm suffers from soft corners on land! It is notorious for being pretty soft behind a dome.

 

There is a bunch of info here: http://www.wetpixel.com/articles/review-nikon-fx-wide-angle-lenses

 

Hope that helps

 

Adam

[JackConnick 76]

The problem I have with the 16-35 is that it's an f/4. It just doesn't catch focus in darker water, at least for me. I primarily use it for blue water shots where I need a little more reach and not for CF/WA. So I don't care about the corners as much, or a slight crop works. For CF/WA, the Sigma 15FE rocks. Looking forward to the new Nikon 8-15FE for sure...

[adamhanlon 0]

I think we need to be careful here...

 

The 16-35mmm is a rectilinear wide angle, and as such produces a very different type of image to the Sigma 15mm or the new Nikon 8-15mm. If you find the forced perspective of fisheye images irksome or have straight lines in the image (wrecks/lines etc.), a rectilinear lens is a good choice. It is much more difficult to get good corners with one (especially on full frame cameras) and it will need a large dome and long extension...

 

I cannot imagine trying to shoot CFWA with the 16-35mm

 

I'm not sure that with modern cameras and lenses there is any technical reason why an f/4 lens will not focus as well as an f/2.8. With the D800, the cross type sensors are effective with lenses down to f/5.6. This should mean that the 16-35 will focus as well as any f/2.8. My experience would suggest that this is the case.

 

Adam

[miguelpereira 0]

Anyone considering trying the Sigma 14mm f1.8 Art. This lens looks amazing for topside, could it be a viable option for uw? The minimum focusing distance is rated as 0.27m which is nore or less the same as the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR.

[adamhanlon 0]

It would be good to try one! If i can persuade Sigma to lend me one....

 

Adam

[ianmarsh 37]

I have been using a Nikonos RS 13mm (adapted by Seacam), and used with a Seacam to Nauticam port adapter on a Nauticam ND800. Works amazingly well with excellent corner sharpness at pretty much any aperture. Of course it is a fisheye, not a rectilinear.

 

Also, the Nikonos 15mm on the Sony A7 series is incredibly sharp, and IS a rectilinear lens.

 

Love those old, purpose built optics:)

 

Ian

[Fiona Ayerst 0]

thank you all for this info. I am very appreciative and especially excited about the Nikonos info as I have a few of those lenses! Im going to see if I can get adapters as that sounds like a great plan- much better than them collecting dust as they are currently doing....

Edited July 12, 2017 by Fiona Ayerst