Jump to content
adamhanlon

Wetpixel's Nikon FX wide-angle lens review

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

It is a complicated answer.

I'll start with what I have done...
I use a WACP-1 with a SAGA adaptor and a Nikon 28-70 f/3.5 on my Seacam housing for (almost) rectilinear wide angle with D850

For fisheye, I use a Seacam CP port with a Nikon 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5 with the D850.

I have a Superdome with the appropriate extensions and a16-35 f/4, but since getting the WACP, have not used them much.

I have never shot the 14mm, but I expect that it will need a Superdome to get anything approaching decent corner sharpness. There may well be others who have direct experience of using it who are better versed in its use. 

My experience is that there is no way to get around a 230mm dome for rectilinear wide angle underwater with full frame cameras (and even then they need to be shot at f/11-f13), and the more resolution they have, the more optical flaws show in image. Squaring this with making the set up travel friendly is challenging!

thank you all !! it is difficult to find the right answer, I think I will start testing with the 14 mm and a large dome 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some test shots with the 14mm Nikkor D-AF lens a few months ago - the sun finally came out but the salmon were done so I had to do something useful with the weather!!

I used a standard Seacam Superdome for these images. There are special versions (with larger throats and matching PVLs) for larger diameter lenses. The first pair is in a nearby lake shot at f/16. One is with and the other without lens corrections for the lens in Lightroom (proper lens automatically gets picked if tiny box is clicked).

The water was too shallow to submerge the dome all the way and am pointing the camera so as to not be shooting straight into the sun. Location is on the north shore of the lake making this challenging.

Marginal at f/16 is my conclusion.

Tom

1800x574-8726.jpg

1800x574-8726-2.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second pair was shot at f/22 in the creek that is just a few meters from where I took the previous shot. The water is even shallower. You can see the affect of the curved field on the rock in the foreground on the left side of the frame - more in focus toward the center of the frame (where the spruce needle is located on the rock). Pair same as above - one with corrections and one without. WP is allowing me to upload only one shot......:-<<<<

Conclusion: f/22 is still marginal.

Tom

1800x574-8845-3.jpg

Edited by Tom_Kline
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom! This is great information.

I agree with your conclusions completely. It looks like the 14mm does not work well behind a dome...

Adam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...