Nikon 16mm FE - how fishy on digital?

I hear people recommend the 16mm FE but I'd like to know how fishy it is on digital. I love my 10.5mm but sometimes its just too fishy. I like the 12-24mm and use it topside a lot, but it doesn't 'pop' like some other lenses (and I just broke it...) and the 16mm gets wider. I also wonder if Nikon will ever release a 9mm f/2.8 DX. Can anyone post a pic that shows the 16mm FE's distortion, perhaps a pic of a building or something with straight lines please? Cheers,

Chris

Here's an untouched pic taken with the D200 and Nikon 16mm FE.

It shows some distortion, particularly in the horizon, the tree was pretty straight and vertical, but you can easily see some curvature due to the FE. Overall, I tend to try to minimize the effect by subject placement, so I don't have a great example of the distortion.

In general, I find the 16mm great for U/W and a fun lens for topside. The distortion is not too great, and with a little creative composition very interesting shots are possible.

Hope this helps.

John

I use this lense a great deal underwater. The distortion is much less than with the 10.5. It is a great lens for big fish and divers.

Hal

thanks guys, sounds like a winner.

cheers

Chris

I know a number of underwater photographers using this lens to great effect. It suffers from less corner problems than a rectilinear lens but still needs to be aligned with the dome for best results.

I use the 16mm quite a lot. I find it an ideal foil for the 10.5mm. It is very nice for big animals. It is also my favourite lens for filter photograph. Below are a few examples to give you an idea of suitable subjects:

Alex

I use the 16mm quite a lot. I find it an ideal foil for the 10.5mm. It is very nice for big animals. It is also my favourite lens for filter photograph.

Great shots Alex!

What do you recon the 35mm film equivalent would be?

Cheers,

Espen

I know a number of underwater photographers using this lens to great effect. It suffers from less corner problems than a rectilinear lens but still needs to be aligned with the dome for best results.

It isn't cheap, but if you are looking to get away from or minimize the FE effect and have the ability to shoot from behind an 8 or 9 inch quality dome you might want to give some thought to this lens.

I hear people recommend the 16mm FE but I'd like to know how fishy it is on digital. I love my 10.5mm but sometimes its just too fishy. I like the 12-24mm and use it topside a lot, but it doesn't 'pop' like some other lenses (and I just broke it...) and the 16mm gets wider. I also wonder if Nikon will ever release a 9mm f/2.8 DX. Can anyone post a pic that shows the 16mm FE's distortion, perhaps a pic of a building or something with straight lines please? Cheers,

 

Chris

I love this lens UW, but can't add any pictures as impressive as Alex'. I've used it for CFWA, reef scenes, and big animals, as well as with the Magic Filter. Besides Alex and I, Berkely White seems to like the lens, too, based on his article in Fathoms #17. Depth of field, corner sharpness, speed, flare resistance, and focus speed are all superb. Above water, I have had trouble controlling the distortion (still learning), and DxO don't support this lens for their distortion removal package. So I have no keeper images with it, above water. Hope to experiment more and figure it out as time goes on...

I'd pay big bucks for a really well-corrected 9 to 11 mm f2.8 rectilnear prime, and I think lots of other people, would, too. For my landscape shots, I'd be willing to pay even bigger bucks, happily, if they'd make if f1.8 or 2. I think lots of serious amateurs, and pros who do architecture or landscape, would be interested. But I haven't heard any credible rumors. Of course, this lens might flare wildly and need a hood as big as yo head.

Chris in Red Stick

I mention this only as an option to possibly consider: I am very happy with the 14/2.8 behind a 9" dome (and in the case of Seacam a pvl25 extension ring) for this range of focal length.

Some have said the Sigma 14 2.8 is very good at a fraction of the cost (including Hogan, who I trust more than a lot of the 'mavens'). The Nikon 14 is in a different cost class (1230, import, B&H) from the Nikon 16 (600, import, B&H) and the Sigma 14 2.8 (900, though currently hard to find for Nikon mount).

I mostly buy Nikon glass, but some Sigma glass is very good and sometimes its specs are slightly different in a way that works for me (e.g., I chose the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 over the Nikon 12-24 f4; wider, and half the price). Of course, neither zoom can compare to an f2.8 prime.

Any experience out there?

I'd love to try out a 14mm some time -- never even looked through one.

Chris in Red Stick

Some have said the Sigma 14 2.8 is very good at a fraction of the cost (including Hogan, who I trust more than a lot of the 'mavens'). The Nikon 14 is in a different cost class (1230, import, B&H) from the Nikon 16 (600, import, B&H) and the Sigma 14 2.8 (900, though currently hard to find for Nikon mount).

 

I mostly buy Nikon glass, but some Sigma glass is very good and sometimes its specs are slightly different in a way that works for me (e.g., I chose the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 over the Nikon 12-24 f4; wider, and half the price). Of course, neither zoom can compare to an f2.8 prime.

 

Any experience out there?

 

I'd love to try out a 14mm some time -- never even looked through one.

 

Chris in Red Stick

I had a chance to try out a friend's Nikon 14mm 2.8 one morning last summer. It's an awesome piece of glass. I couldn't see any barrel distortion. I only snapped of a few quick shots with my D200, here's a sample:

I'd love to try out a 14mm some time -- never even looked through one.

Great shots Alex!

 

What do you recon the 35mm film equivalent would be?

 

Cheers,

Espen

I would think similar to 24mm but i haven't used the 16 on dig so not sure..

What about the Tokina 10-17 mm FE? It seems to provide the best of both worlds in one lens? As far as what i read on WP (although i didn't read the last posts on this thread). It seems to be a good lens, most likely not the same quality as the 16 mm or 14 mm Nikon, but it's also less then half of the price.

cheers, Udo

The coverage of the 16mm on a digital Nikon, I find most reminiscant of the coverage of the Nikonos 15mm lens. About 90 degrees.

Alex

One should shoot both a Sigma and a Nik on a Nik sensor before believing they are similar in performance. Topside, I thought the sigma was fine on film and I loved the Nik 14 on film, but both were lost behind a dome because of corner, glare and light issues. But on a hi-mp crop sensor the Nik 14 just shines, while the Sigma suffers at the same level of resolving power.

I started a thread regarding 14mm, because I am looking at getting a 14mm rectilinear lens to use UW on a Nikon D200, and was looking for advice from someone who has shot them on a DSLR with small sensor UW.

So I take it you would say that the Nikkor is significantly superior to the Sigma 14mm f2.8 on a DX-sensor for UW shooting?

Also, you mention the need of a 8" or 9" dome. I have a Hugyfot 17.5cm FE dome (7") which works nicely with the Nikkor 10,5FE. Would that cause problems, or do I need a larger dome.

cheers

Christian

I started a thread regarding 14mm, because I am looking at getting a 14mm rectilinear lens to use UW on a Nikon D200, and was looking for advice from someone who has shot them on a DSLR with small sensor UW.

 

So I take it you would say that the Nikkor is significantly superior to the Sigma 14mm f2.8 on a DX-sensor for UW shooting?

 

Also, you mention the need of a 8" or 9" dome. I have a Hugyfot 17.5cm FE dome (7") which works nicely with the Nikkor 10,5FE. Would that cause problems, or do I need a larger dome.

So I tested and bought the Nik 14 and, like I commented in an earlier post, this lens seems as if it were designed to be used on crop sensors. The Nik 14 is pretty good at 5.6, but the sweet spot is f8-f11, with f16 again, being pretty good. It isn't a DX lens and Nikon doesn't imply it is designed for digital, but I believe it is their very best WA film lens for use on digital. Plus the only digital prime they make is the 10.5, so unless you are staisfied to use mostly 3.5 to 5.6 zooms the 14mm makes a lot of sense for that apparent 21mm WA lens.

I have used this lens behind Seacam's Fisheye and Wide Ports, but find that it is best behind the Superdome (9"). It seems as if the lighting issues with these super-wide lenses is somewhat controlled or mitigated with a flatter radius dome. Unfortunately I am not familiar with your dome, so I do not known what radius is used for that 7", nor do I know what extension rings, if any, would be required. MFD is 8".

Again, both these lenses in question behave differently on film vs. sensor and topside vs. underwater. I am only speaking to what I get underwater behind a 9" dome on a D2x sensor.

Thank's for the feedback.

/christian

My Sigma on my D2x showed noticably less sharpness well as color fringing at high-contrast areas across the face of the lens. I suspect it would be the same at the lens edges too, but my cropped sensor obviously cuts that out. Given the fringing issues digital can create anyway, I didn't think twice before looking for an alternative lens which would not produce those types of results. The Sigma just doesn't seem to hold up well against the upper edges of resolving power many UW-photo folks are using these days.

 

So I tested and bought the Nik 14 and, like I commented in an earlier post, this lens seems as if it were designed to be used on crop sensors. The Nik 14 is pretty good at 5.6, but the sweet spot is f8-f11, with f16 again, being pretty good. It isn't a DX lens and Nikon doesn't imply it is designed for digital, but I believe it is their very best WA film lens for use on digital. Plus the only digital prime they make is the 10.5, so unless you are staisfied to use mostly 3.5 to 5.6 zooms the 14mm makes a lot of sense for that apparent 21mm WA lens.

 

I have used this lens behind Seacam's Fisheye and Wide Ports, but find that it is best behind the Superdome (9"). It seems as if the lighting issues with these super-wide lenses is somewhat controlled or mitigated with a flatter radius dome. Unfortunately I am not familiar with your dome, so I do not known what radius is used for that 7", nor do I know what extension rings, if any, would be required. MFD is 8".

 

Again, both these lenses in question behave differently on film vs. sensor and topside vs. underwater. I am only speaking to what I get underwater behind a 9" dome on a D2x sensor.