Nikon 14mm or 16mm

Has anybody compared these two lenses underwater. I know the 14mm is more expensive; my only question is which is the sharpest lens underwater?

Jeff,

Go with the Nikon 16mm (or even Sigma 15mm Fisheye) as any fisheye will always be sharper in the corners due to NOT being a rectilinear lens.

You saw Jimmy's pics, enough said

dhaas

Thanks David, that's what I ordered, but I was having second thoughts.

Jeff,

Right now there is only one zoom lens that likely is anywhere near as sharp all the way in the corners as a Nikon 10.5mm, or 16mm. The Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye....

Again being a Fisheye to start with it doens't follow the 1.5X (Nikon) or 1.6X (Canon) crop factor, and will have sharper corners even behind small dome ports. This lens reputedley also gets less "fisheye" as you zoom it in. Some won't try it because they don't learn how to shoot it minimizing the "fisheye" effect. Alex Mustard seems to be able to with his 10.5mm.....Many UW shooters just don't like any curvature in UW wide angle photos.

On your D200 you'll be happy with the images from the Nikon 16mm Fisheye. Or the 10.5mm when you get super close to Babycakes and Emma in August

Later,

dhaas

You will NEVER be sorry that you bought the 16mm.

Hal

Alex Mustard seems to be able to with his 10.5mm.....Or they just don't like any curvature in UW wide angle photos.

The 10.5mm is very nice for dramatic shark face shots. But tends to have a tadpole effect on the sharks which is impossible to avoid. Large head and tiny body behind. Slighly less wide lenses are better.

The 10.5mm makes the head so big that the tail is often completely hidden by the body.

One of the amazing things about Jim's trips is the amount of time you get with great subject matter. So ideally you want to take several lenses and use them to get different types of shots. The 15/16mm should be the main one, but also do dives with the 10.5mm and 12-24mm to make use of their different qualities.

The 12-24mm gives a more natural perspective. Less dramatic. More of a natural history shot.

The 14mm is very nice, although a little overpriced for UW use (I have only used it on land). UW wide rectilinear is of less value than on land. Also it is a big lens and hard to fit in all housings. Ryan will know if it fits in your Subal, Jeff.

Alex

Jeff (and others)

I agree with Alex's comments regrding visual rendering of certain animals. Plus the time on Shearwater trips one has to try different lenses, techniques, etc.

I personally LIKE any distortion if I feel it adds to a photo. But that could just be me

Jeff, I predict in August you will shoot with your NEW Nikon 16mm and the 10.5mm the most. And be really happy with the resulting images.

dhaas

P.S - Too bad you are shooting Nikon. I will have the Tokina 10-17mm and would gladly let you try it if you had a Canon to Nikon converter LOL.......

The 14mm is very nice, although a little overpriced for UW use (I have only used it on land).

But I agree with Alex Mustard. For the cost, if one doesn't need the 14 topside, I don't think it makes strong financial sense to choose it over the 16. Plus the 16 is a lot easier to use underwater because of the limited fe effect on a cropped sensor while the 14 still requires the same shooting practices of any wide rectilinear lens.

I use mine underwater fairly consistently for that focal range because it's better and because I use it topside as well. But if I was looking for that coverage underwater only, I would not spend the money on the 14. I like the 12-24 at f8-f11 at that focal range behind a 9" dome too so my quandry would be whether or not I felt the need to duplicate it by purchasing the 16fe.

Thanks guys for all the info. On my recent trip with Jim which I just posted some pics from on the trip report section.

http://homepage.mac.com/jeffinorlando/Baha...merhead%20Trip/

I found the following:

10.5 - too much tadpole effect as Alex mentions with the really up close shots (on your dome) like the 'Lemon Snaps on the back of the boat, and the Tigers sniffing at you down below.

12-24 - I could just not match the sharpness that I saw Jim get with his 15mm FE on the Canon.

My favorite lens by the end of the trip was my 17-55 for sharpness and 'honest' depiction of the shape of these guys up close. I do love that lens, but just find it a bit cumbersome particularly for this type of 'action' shooting. It seems that the 16mm will give me all the sharpness etc of the 17-55 and more, less of the fisheye distortion of the 10.5, in a more compact package. So I'm looking forward to going back with David in August

dhaas

 

P.S - Too bad you are shooting Nikon. I will have the Tokina 10-17mm and would gladly let you try it if you had a Canon to Nikon converter LOL.......

David I don't quite understand what you mean by this "Canon to Nikon converter for the Tokina?????? (LOL....) - edit - OK, I get it now, you want to loan your lens to him but besides the non-existing "converter" you do realize he would also need other items from you to use it in his Subal, yes ....... (LOL too now, I get where you are coming from....., I'm sure the Tokina 10-17 is much faster than I am........ - After all I was in the water at 7am up there this am and am a bit off, 40 degrees out/burrrrr, but awesome viz/manatee!!!! ) Still recent data as follows on the 10-17/d200:

DavidG just took photos of manatee here with the Tokina 10-17 on a d200/Subal (several of us WetPixellians hooked up unexpectedly). He showed us how it was mounted in his Subal ND20 with subal extension ring and using the focus gear on the housing to switch from 10 through 17 (very smooth). He said the photos looked really sharp and I'm awaiting his take on them on his analysis upon returning home.

The only thing I could see that was bad about his Tokina 10-17/Nikon d200/Subal ND20 setup last week were the conditions with the manatee! It was too warm, too low tide for stunning pictures but he really enjoyed himself none-the-less I believe!! He did say that the Tokina 10-17 was faster than the Nikon 16, that he used the day before. I use the Nikon 16 with the manatee.

I'm looking very fwd to more info on the Tokina and I'll probably add one to my d200 lens arsenal soon as I saw how nicely it works and fits in the Subal. I believe Ryan at ReefPhoto sold and set up the lens/extension ring/gear for him.

Best, Carol

Well Carol,

Your pics of the manatees are about the best I've seen so far; so the sharpness of the Nikon 16mm looks pretty darn good. Did DavidG mean that the Tokina focused faster? It is a 3.5 - 4.5 vs the 2.8 Nikon.

Anyway, I think I'm 'lensed out' for a while having just purchased the 16mm and a 70-200VR.

Carol,

Sorry about the confusion. I keep forgetting many dSLR shooters are so into the gear that a joke might be lost on them

I, too, really enjoy seeing your stellar Manatee shots. A couple of friends and I are scheduled to try and go out Wednesday March 28th. We'll gauge the weather and such.

I know David Gallardo very well as he was on the Deep Blue in Galapagos with me back in Oct. 2004. He is a really, really talented shooter.

I'm looking forward to seeing him post a few taken with the Tokina 10-17mm also. I think this lens may become a bit of a "cult" lens, producing great results on cropped sensor cameras at a comparatively low cost.

Now...back to finding one of those Canon to Nikon and Nikon to Canon converters so we can all share lenses! LOL.....

dhaas

Carol,

 

Sorry about the confusion. I keep forgetting many dSLR shooters are so into the gear that a joke might be lost on them

 

I, too, really enjoy seeing your stellar Manatee shots. A couple of friends and I are scheduled to try and go out Wednesday March 28th. We'll gauge the weather and such.

 

I know David Gallardo very well as he was on the Deep Blue in Galapagos with me back in Oct. 2004. He is a really, really talented shooter.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing him post a few taken with the Tokina 10-17mm also. I think this lens may become a bit of a "cult" lens, producing great results on cropped sensor cameras at a comparatively low cost.

 

Now...back to finding one of those Canon to Nikon and Nikon to Canon converters so we can all share lenses! LOL.....

 

dhaas

David, well I don't consider myself to be one of those that is "so into the gear", I actually consider myself "so obfuscated about the gear" (now there is a word that really describes how I feel!!). Anyway with so much yet to learn a "joke" can easily be lost on me because I tend to take camera info so "literally".........

Thanks for comments on my manatee shots. I've got more and even some better ones, just because I go a lot and I'll try to post soon. Good thing about manatee is even if it is a "bad photo day" you have to have a real problem "not" to have fun with the manatee!!

I too am looking fwd to DavidGs pics with the Tokina, he got several of me/manatee. But - warning - conditions were not that good when he was here so my pics may seem good when conditions are better but DavidG could literally blow me away if he was there on one of the very few "perfect" days....... (I do try though and manatee seem to like me cause I try to move real slow and act like a manatee, so they give me lots of chances to improve!!......)

David, March 28th is usually too warm for manatee. But things could be different this year? Still yesterday there were not that many manatee but I swam around with an anhinga (bird) for about an hour by myself (no one around, I went on an off-time in a kayak). Pics were so-so though cause I had an allen screw loosen underwater on one of my handles and my rig was very hard to hold. Plus I think there might be another lens that is better for "diving birds", I'm not sure, maybe a magic potion instead!!! Anyway even without manatee there are interesting things and water was very clear for a while.

Well Carol,

Your pics of the manatees are about the best I've seen so far; so the sharpness of the Nikon 16mm looks pretty darn good. Did DavidG mean that the Tokina focused faster? It is a 3.5 - 4.5 vs the 2.8 Nikon.

Anyway, I think I'm 'lensed out' for a while having just purchased the 16mm and a 70-200VR.

Thanks Chuck, as said I have a new crop of manatee photos, even my husband noticed I'm getting better (and he is not a photographer but he does paint, etc. and he noticed a difference, so maybe I am figuring things out.....). I'll post some soon, but I'm wading myself through the terrible confusion of learning so many things and how it slows one down. But slow and steady and thorough is how I operate and learn things so I'll just persist on.....

DavidG thought the Tokina 10-17 focused faster than the Nikon 16mm. I don't know if it really does or if he just caught the 16mm in tough light at Crystal River that slowed it down (at CR often my 16mm won't focus at all when light rays (which are common) switch and change all over the place. In that case I pre-focus.) But maybe the Tokina handles those better? Still we don't know how sharp it is yet compared to the 16mm. I'm sure he will let us know soon! He is a fine photographer and a really neat guy.

Chuck the 16mm is proven and a very good choice. Sometimes I wished I had gotten the Sigma 15mm FE cause it focuses a little closer and sometimes manatee will be obsessed with your dome. But I've been happy with the Nikon 16mm and DavidG said the Tokina 10-17mm focuses closer than the Nikon 16mm so hopefully I'll use both lenses next manatee season! B)

Ohhhh, a 70-200vr, I don't have anything like that!!!! Cool! B)

Carol

OK Chuck,

Just to show you that you made a great decision on the 16mm Nikon here are two of my manatee pics from day before yesterday... (yes, I did find and process a couple and no, it wasn't very overwhelming......., I'm trying to get my workflow down and it wasn't so bad. But then I didn't have to do a lot but run these images through CS2 RAW and sat/contrast in photoshop plus resize and convert to sRGB. I was really surprised to see the histograms change so wildly when I converted from Adobe RGB to sRGB. Must have to do with the cyans that sRGB doesn't read as well. But these cyans are real in the springs here. That is the fun thing - in the springs the true color of the water can change within a foot or two. This is because the true spring water is a really lovely, clear gin-spring-blue, then it mixes with green water and it comes up with a wild mixture of water colors all through the day and sunlight changes it even more - literally hundreds of possible water colors there! Adobe RGB really seems to capture more of the true greens and cyan of some of the water.)

Anyway these two examples were what I found to show the sharpness of the Nikon 16mm lens. This is in front of one of the sanctuairies and this manatee wanted to play with me............ Look at the manatee skin wrinkles in the left corner - sharp as a tack even with the rainbow light rays that are hard to focus on. Now I want to see how the Tokina 10-17 does in corners like this........ Best, Carol