Wide angle for 1D Mk2

I will shortly be getting a Subal housing and setup for my 1D2 (and in a few months a 1DS2). I have macro covered, but I need some suggestions on wide angle options. I don't know what lenses are wide enough for UW use. I was thinking either the Sigma 20 1.8 or the Canon 24 1.4 for primes and possibly the 16-35 2.8. I have heard serious conflicting reports on the quaility of the zoom, so that's my last choice. I know there is a huge difference in price, but lets not worry about that. Also if there is anything else that I'm missing let me know.

Andrew

I have heard good things about the Tokina 17mm, but I haven't used it. Any lens will have to work around the 1.25x crop of the 1DmkII

I use the Sigma 12-24 which is very versatile. But it suffers from flare and is not the sharpest lens I've ever used.

I'd also look at the 15mm fisheye which is wrockin' good on the 1DmkII

Cheers

James

I'll check out the fisheye, do you think a 20mm prime would be wide enough on full frame? I know I'm getting the 1DS2 in the spring, its my motivation to get into grad school!

Plus I will be using this lens a lot above water and I don't know if I want to deal with the fisheye perspective all the time.

On full frame 20mm is fine. That is what i always used on film and is pretty much equivalent to the Nikonos 15mm.

I'd look at a 20mm Canon lens too. Its reasonably priced and although you may hear that it has not got a particularly good reputation, I've yet to meet anyone who has one and is not happy with it. I've just bought one to use with a 1DS but haven't had chance to use it yet.

Your housing will take a FF camera so if you ever upgrade to a FF the 20 will be very handy on this too.

I am not a Canon shooter, but I would go for the 15mm fisheye and then either the 20mm or the 24mm.

Alex

Personally, I use a Canon 15mm fisheye and Canon 17-40 with my 1dmark2 in a Seacam housing. 15mm will result in a wide view, with some fisheye barrel distortion and wrap-around effect, but not as much as on a full frame. Though I haven't measured it scientifically, perspective is probably about 14mm in coverage (something like 110 degrees or so...) Personally, I like the compromise. 17-40 ends up a pretty decent pelagic critter lens.

RE the Canon 20mmf2.8... I used to have one and used it sporadically on film cameras, but honestly did not like it much. Sharp enough in the center, but very poor edges/corners. If you search around, you will find similar reports from others. 20mm is a useful length on Full Frame, but less so on 1.25x crop, I think. If buying a 20mm, I would personally go with the Sigma 20mm f1.8, though be ready to test and exchange if your copy stinks. Some are good, some aren't. When good, it's better than the Canon 20mm.

If you don't want to be as wide as the 15mm on your 1dmark2, I'd second the suggestion to look at the Tokina 17mm pro for a prime, and either the 17-40mm or 16-35 as zoom. If you are using Seacam, you will need the large 9" superdome and an extension ring to best use the zooms. Quality is OK, not great. But then all zooms are a compromise, IMO. Moving to full frame 1dsmark2 you will see all of the horrible corner performance for which CAnon is famous. I have been complaining about Canon wide angle for 15 years, and it's worse on the digital cameras than ever before. New Canon fixed wides are desparately needed.

brandon cole

www.brandoncole.com

Listen to Brandon and not me. He knows much more about Canon that I do.

Alex

Corner softness is a problem on lenses (except fisheyes) underwater when their field of view exceeds about 90 degrees. Esoterically, there is a lot of discussion about the merits of lenses especially Canon wide-angles, and whilst there does appear to be some variation in both designs and production, most major manufacturers produce viable to use lenses (except perhaps a few of the cheapie zooms!). I know well respected professional photographers who use the Canon 20mm lens as a matter of course and who are perfectly happy with it. I also know photographers who won't use it!

I prefer to use primes to zooms if I can and I do like the 20mm focal length on FF, hence why I have bought one. When I've thoroughly tried it out behind a variety of ports, I'll post my findings (don't hold your breath) and I'll be interested to see if it really is as poor as it is often considered to be. As I have a 24/1.4L lens aswell, I do have a good yardstick to check it against.

It's too bad about the Canon wide angle lenses, I know they are not great on the edges. Maybe someone can figure out how to put Zeiss and Leica lenses in a UW housing and operate the apeture.

The more I think about using the fisheye UW, I think that having too much in the frame could be a problem. I know working on land I don't like superwide lenses as it makes it very difficult to frame the picture properly. Too much unwanted stuff gets in the frame.

I think I'll probably get the 20 1.8 and the fisheye Subal dome, that way if I want to use the 15 fish, I'll have the port already. I do want to use a prime due to the fact that I want the better image quality and loose a little bit of the versitility.

Thanks for all the advice

Hi Tim,

Check the close focusing ability on the 20 1.8 and make sure it will work behind the small fisheye dome. You may need a diopter.

Cheers

James

The close focus is 7.9" for anyone who may be interested. The Subal site says a +2 diopter and EXR40 to work properly.

Andrew

The close focus is 7.9" for anyone who may be interested. The Subal site says a +2 diopter and EXR40 to work properly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good! There are far to many people not using dioptres these days for wide angles. Most lenses work fine without a dioptre, but are better with.

But I have given up trying to convince people on this one. If their shots aren't as good as they could be, then all the better for me!

Alex

The more I think about using the fisheye UW, I think that having too much in the frame could be a problem. I know working on land I don't like superwide lenses as it makes it very difficult to frame the picture properly. Too much unwanted stuff gets in the frame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know I have just posted some images with my fins in the corners in the Surprising Fluorescence discussion! But IMO once you get used to shooting the 15mm - you won't want to shoot scenic wide angle, diver pictures or shipwrecks any other way.

With Subal but 2 ports. One FE2 and one flat port that fits your shortest macro lens. Then use extention rings for getting everything else right. I am a Nikon shooter, and I have 9 lenses that I have shot underwater this year, and these all fit behind one Subal dome port and one flat port with only using one extention ring. UW shooting is expensive - don't make it more so.

Also I wouldn't say that all the Canon wides are aweful. Just not perfect. So someone like Brandon who is striving for perfection will complain about them. While other users will probably be very happy.

Alex

While I was cruising the Subal port selection page, most of the wide angles from Canon and Sigma can fit under the Fisheye Port. So I can use a fisheye, wide prime, wide zooms, and a few others. All I need to change is extension rings and diopters.

I think that Canons fisheye is supposed to be a top notch performer. Most people complain about the 14mm ($1800) and the 16-35 ($1300) to me, paying almost 2 grand for a lens and not having good performance isn't that useful. But I also think that somepeoples expectations are a little high for such a wide lens.

Alex, that flourescence article is super interesting.