So does anyone want to speculate on 14-24mm vs 17-35mm F2.8 for underwater use?

I just wonder. On DX camera, there is no brainer, 14-24mm should be a significant improvement over

the 12-24mm DX if there is no problem with needs for diopter use.

However, on full frame camera, for underwater general wide angle use, would the 17-35mm be more

appropriate than 14-24mm? I realize that a D3 has DX cropped mode which would make it close to 17-35mm but forget that for the moment.

This is assume that picture quality etc are equal, just wondering about zoom range, that's all.

I think the zoom range of the 14-24 is pretty disappointing. Since I've never been a fan of the 12-24, I hope that the 14-24 is a better performer. The wide end for DX cameras is OK but not spectacular. I don't think that using the 14-24 in DX mode with the D3 makes any sense at all. 21mm focal length with a 5MP sensor doesn't meet the standard today.

Some people seem to like really wide and feel that 14mm with full frame would be fantastic. Achieving good edge performance with FF and ultrawide (weitwinkel) is bad enough, so I'd be even more pessimistic with it being a zoom. Still, IF it worked well on the wide end with a FF sensor it would make an interesting lens choice. As it stands, I'd consider it for a DX camera since I won't buy a 12-24.

The way I see it, it's not that different than Canon's 16-35 II lens - except it's a few degrees wider. The Canon lens doesn't perform that well behind a dome port at 16mm so I'd be very skeptical about the Nikon being a winner - but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

The 17-35 on a FF Kodak ProSLRn behind an Aquatica 8" dome port was pretty good by the way. I can dig up some samples for folks that are interested.

Cheers

James

I think it will be difficult to put the 14-24 in a housing; it has a fixed hood and doesn't seem to accept filters (or diopters). I think it will be a great PJ lens though.

The 14mm end will be 114 degrees versus 108+ for the 16-35. For DX it will be about 90. The 14-24 is 1000g, or 360g heavier than the 16-35 II (!). Closest focus is about the same but the 16-35 takes diopters.

Sigma makes the 15-30 and 12-24 and they are both full frame. Neither is f/2.8 but both are cheaper and far lighter. I'd like to see a comparison of these on a full frame body.

Sigma makes the 15-30 and 12-24 and they are both full frame. Neither is f/2.8 but both are cheaper and far lighter. I'd like to see a comparison of these on a full frame body.

I haven't thought about this possibility, it will be interesting to see how they fare on a full frame body (has anybody used the Canon version of these in a 1Ds or 5D?), although I don't expect much as they were designed with cropped sensors in mind.

Not quite true Luiz - they were both designed for FF. I used both lenses actually - funny. I used the 15-30 on my Fuji S2pro for a while. I used the 12-24 on the Canon 1DmkII which is a 1.25x crop.

Both lenses performed very well. They do not have front threads either, so can't take diopters. They have really big front elements, so catch the sun and the flare will ruin the shots. Eric and I both used the Sigma 14mm prime and it has the same problem w/ flare.

James

As I remember from the time before there were so many WA options, the Sigma FF 12-24mm lens was very wide and dificult to fit most ports esp. with a zoom gear.

I can tell y'all that the Sigma 12-24 is big but it fits in the Seacam ports. Dunno about others.

Cheers

James

I am a bit concern about the 14-24mm not taking a diopter but since focusing distance is the same as 12-24mm at least from 18-24mm range according to a brochure that I saw, I think it should be ok since I don't need a diopter for 12-24mm behind Subal FE domeport. It would give equavalent to 18-36mm or roughly similar to using 17-35mm F2.8 on a full frame with less worry about cornor sharpness which I am very excited about.

However the lens is quite a bit longer than 12-24mm, it will be a rather big and lobside setup with extension ring and domeport, I am afraid.

I definitely would like to see how it will perform on FF camera. However since housing will most likely be an issue with D3, most likely I will sit out until there is a housing available and know what Nikon is planning with ?D3X etc etc first.

From all the reviews I read, Sigma 12-24mm is no better than Nikon 12-24mm beside also being full frame so hopefully the 14-24mm should still be better.

My main concern is the large diameter of ~ 98mm according to the Nikon site. Using a ruler I come up with an inner ('throat') diameter of 97 to 98mm on my Seacam ports. May need to bore out the opening just a hair. Very hard if not impossible to find max diameter of lenses accommodated by different housing systems. Looks like a significant parameter that should be addressed by Wetpixel reviews.

The min. focus distance spec. given by Nikon is very weird, so what is it for FL < 18mm?

My main concern is the large diameter of ~ 98mm according to the Nikon site. Using a ruler I come up with an inner ('throat') diameter of 97 to 98mm on my Seacam ports.

That's bad news for Subal users, the widest Nikon lenses that can fit through Subal ports are the 105mm VR and the 17-55mm DX and both are about 85mm wide. More bad news for Subal "full framers" is that both Sigmas (12-24 and 17-30) are 87mm wide and won't fit in a Subal either. I think the only housing manufacturer that has ports narrower than Subal is Ikelite, all the others (Seacam, Sea&Sea and Aquatica) are wider.

This is pretty bad news so may be not only that I will need new housing, I might have to look at changing housing manufacturer as well

Hmmm.. all the more reason to stay with D2X for now and save my money

This is pretty bad news so may be not only that I will need new housing, I might have to look at changing housing manufacturer as well

Hmmm.. all the more reason to stay with D2X for now and save my money

I wouldn't let the 14-24 be a dealbreaker on a D300 or D3 upgrade. After all, James makes a good point for the FF shooters when he says "The 17-35 on a FF Kodak ProSLRn behind an Aquatica 8" dome port was pretty good by the way. I can dig up some samples for folks that are interested."

I remember the 17-35 as being a very good lens back in the F100/F5 days. Whether it will stand the pixel-scrutiny for the corners with a high-res digital camera is something else again. it is 104 degrees at the wide end on a full frame camera. The 14-24 doesn't sound all that special when used with a cropped sensor camera either, so if it doesn't work for most housings I can't see that as such a huge issue.

The more significant advantage may be the 18mm Nikkor. That was one of the best primes for wide angle, although only 100 degees in coverage. The D3 and 18mm may eliminate some of the corner angst we've all been suffering. Sounds like a potentially very powerful tool set.

I wouldn't let the 14-24 be a dealbreaker on a D300 or D3 upgrade. After all, James makes a good point for the FF shooters when he says "The 17-35 on a FF Kodak ProSLRn behind an Aquatica 8" dome port was pretty good by the way. I can dig up some samples for folks that are interested."

 

True, compatibility with 14-24mm should not be the deciding factor one way or another. Before knowing the existence of 14-24mm, my big incentive for full frame Nikon was really for the ability to use 17-35mm instead of being stuck with 12-24mm DX on D2X.

Now that Nikon brings out FF camera as well as something that would replace the 12-24mm DX for me, it does not quite work out economically so it is a bit frustrating.

I must admit that I never really got the results I thought that the 17~35 should have delivered when I used it with film, but "..... D3 and 18mm may eliminate some of the corner angst we've all been suffering. Sounds like a potentially very powerful tool set ....." has as Steve says, a lot of potential. That said the lens was designed for film and exceeds 90 degrees field of view so the corners are unlikely to be perfect even with accurate dome placement and appropriate diopter.

I notice that reading Nikon's .pdf about the 14~24 a lot is made about the aspheric elements and high correction of lens aberrations but I wouldn't mind betting that it has some degree of distortion though this, fortunately, isn't so worrying for underwater use. I suspect that its performance will mirror Canon's 16~35II in that it will be an incremental improvement but this may simply not show up underwater except for the cetral section of the image.

So to get back to the question asked, the choice is between a not quite so wide, older design zoom primarily produced for film versus a 'state-of-the-art' wider zoom designed for digital. For underwater use anything wider than ~20mm on FF will exhibit varying degrees of softness and aberrations in the corners regardless of its design (using large ports accurately placed together with an appropriate diopter will minimise but not cure this), so you will end up with a ~20~24 or a ~20~35 lens for 'quality work' and wider focal lengths at which corner quality drops away depending on subject matter (blue water corners aren't affected!). It really depends on viability of each for your sort of underwater photography, ability to fit in housing and of course your wallet. For above water the 14~24 sounds very useful indeed but as I'd see it being used for interiors I'd need to find out exactly what its distortion characteristics are.

The more significant advantage may be the 18mm Nikkor. That was one of the best primes for wide angle, although only 100 degees in coverage. The D3 and 18mm may eliminate some of the corner angst we've all been suffering. Sounds like a potentially very powerful tool set.

Way back when, I compared the 18mm Nikkor to the old 16-35mm Canon zoom:

http://www.wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-1...anon-1ds-mk-ii/

Topside at least, the 18mm was quite nice on the full frame sensor.

Is there an official spec on the throat diameter of the Seacam port system? It sounds like it would be close.

It should be possible to adapt a Seacam dome to a Subal housing. Anyone know if such adapters are available?

Hmmm, at least until housing/port issue is sorted out, for D3, may be Nikon 18mm and Sigma 15mm/Nikon 16mm prime lens might be the best solution for wide angle use. For DX sensor, I might as well stick with 10.5mm or may be Tokina 10-17mm after all. I was a bit surprise by the announcement. I thought that may be Nikon may be annoucing a replacement lens for 17-35mm with update version with their nano coating etc etc feature and improved their current lens lineup rather than introducing a brand new lens.

Only if I was in Indiana and won that powerball lottery over the weekend........

Craig

"Is there an official spec on the throat diameter of the Seacam port system? It sounds like it would be close."

I've just measured an extender and by my measurement the inside diameter ia around 97mm! Whilst there MAY be enough thickness of material to risk skimming the inside of a port or extender it is going to be close and I'm not sure I'd want to do it personally!!!

I hate to say it, but looking at the photos of the lens, I'd say it might be as easy to skim the lens as the largest diameter part which include the hood looks quite thick - not sure I'd want to do this either personally as it might just devalue the lens a tad!!!