nikon 10.5mm or 12-24mm

just one last lens question, fisheye or the 12-24? i have spoken to many uw photographers and they have all unanimously said that the 10.5 fisheye is their money lens uw. since this is ultra wide (weitwinkel) can this scrap out the 12-24 altogether? if i ever were to get the 12-24 i most likely would leave it at 12m full time. some opinions? thanks

The 10.5 is a wondeful lens, but not as flexible as the 12-24. It's also more difficult to light. As you know, with the 10.5, you have to be able to approach fish/animals VERY closely, or else they have to be VERY big, or both.

So I'd have to say that scrapping the 12-24 wouldn't work for me. I use both lens a lot. I also use the 17-35 for wide-angle, mostly for sharks and other animals difficult to approach closely enough for the 12-24, and/or for other situations unsuited for the 10.5 where the 2.8 speed of the 17-35 gives it an edge over the slower 12-24.

Frogfish

I had the same dilemmas and I voted for the 10.5 (but a good friend of me bough the 10-20 same time so we can change)

But its all depend what you want to shoot, for the real WA (wrecks and so) the 10.5 is superior, for sharks and big fishes that don’t get so close the 12-24 (or even 17-somthing) will be better.

It's also important what port you uses, there where a lot of complains about using the WA zoom lens with small (6'') dome ports.

What do you want to do? I took a 10.5mm and a 16mm to Bikini in May, and gave up on the 16mm after two dives. But those wrecks are BIG.

I've used my 12-24mm with a +2D behind a 7" dome on reefs, and been very happy.

My opinion is that if you shoot predominantly reefs the zoom is better, but for wrecks or poor visibility dives the 10.5mm is unsurpassed. The right port for the 12-24mm is absolutely crucial, and as has been said, there was a lot of pain in the early days with poor port choices.

Tim

B)

If I had to choose, I'd chose the 12-24 for more flexibility. I really like the 10.5 but as others have said you have to get CLOSE to anything you are photographing.

For big things like wrecks the 10.5 is the way to go. But if it is an either/or the 12-24 wins.

SD

My opinion is that if you shoot predominantly reefs the zoom is better, but for wrecks or poor visibility dives the 10.5mm is unsurpassed. The right port for the 12-24mm is absolutely crucial, and as has been said, there was a lot of pain in the early days with poor port choices.

 

Tim

 

B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope no wrecks, just shooting reef scenes and corals. i guess the 12-24 is good. im actually considering the 10-20 sigma. i like that its wider .

I feel I am going to upset everyone now and say:

I have both 10.5mm and 12-24mm. I used both on the Oriskany this week. Behind the big Subal glass dome port, I think the zoom is actually sharper! (Sorry for causing trouble.) So I would use the 12-24 except when on very large wrecks, and in very poor viz. So you gotta get both!

I am a very happy sigma 10-20 user/see pics/. Although I believe the 10.5mm delivers some better sharpness, it certainly does not meet the versatility of 10-20mm. In fact I intent to buy 10.5mm anyway.

What attracts my attention is the unreleased tokina 10-17mm FE zoom. If FE is little less sensitive on the proper position behind the dome in terms of sharpness, even the FE zoom could meet my needs. This would be very nice opiton since it covers both 10.5 and 15mm. We will see the optics in interaction with the domes..

Here one more. BTW all with alex filter at f5.6 1/60 iso 320.

Here one more. BTW all with alex filter at f5.6 1/60 iso 320.

more...

Great pictures Strmko2. The corner sharpness is impressive, especially for a rectilinear lens at f5.6.

Is the unreleased tokina WA FE zoom the one that they made for Pentax. That lens really interests me too.

Alex

more...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nice pics Strmko2. did you take this with the sigma 10-20? i am leaning towards the sigma at this point and i like the added wideness. certainly a noticeable difference between the 12-24. im quite curious of the 10-17. any news?

Yes, all taken with the sigma 10-20. The 2mm at the wide end on sigma 10-20 over 12mm on nikon really makes difference.

From my experience the sharpness at 10mm and 20mm is very good. Through the range I experienced some worse results, but still acceptable. When stoped down to f8, it is no issue.

Saved some $$$ too if compared to nikon buy.

Martin

Saved some $$$ too if compared to nikon buy.

 

Martin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

honestly i would have shelled extra just to get the nikon 12-24 but the fact that the wide end went to 10mm ultimately made me favor the sigma. 2mm makes a huge difference in my opinion

I'm lucky - I have both. The 12-24 produces pictures I really like. The 10.5 is far more difficult to use - but it can produce very striking images. You just have to be more careful and thoughtful on composition.