Phat New Lenses

An issue brewing for some time now with the recently released lenses will finally have to be adressed by the housing manufacturers.

It seems the trend toward very large diameter lenses is clear. I think this will only get worse now that both Nikon and Canon are in the full-frame business.

The new AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is 3.9 in in diameter, making this the fattest UW apropriate lens that I am aware of. With its ultrawide (weitwinkel) angle, fast speed and rectilenear projection, I'm sure it will be on every UW photographers wish list regardless of DX or FX format. But given the wide angle and fixed shade I'm sure this will be a difficult one to house and get sharp corners from (No diopters).

Even the new AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mmf/2.8G ED is 3.3 in. Both of these lenses will require a zoom gear to make them useful necessitating even fatter port diameters.

The last fat lens in common use was the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED at 3.3 in diameter. This is the lens that sent all the Subal users to the lathe. Despite a special port, Ikelite still has no manual focus solution for this lens.

Before that was the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED which at 3.2 in just barely fit with a zoom gear in my Ikelite port (you actually have to mount the lens after the camera is in the housing making boat battery changes even more hazardous.).

The industry largely ignored the 3.4 in diameter Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG. But I think fat lenses are here to stay.

I think its time to re-think the standard port design that is so limiting to these wider lenses now that 3.9 in is the new 3 in. I don't think it will do to continue with kluged up custom port solutions. Perhaps a wider port opening and a new set of wider port extensions should also be on the list for D300 and D3 housing designs.

I agree. In fact I was having this very discussion this morning, while looking at an "actual size" picture of the Nikon 14-24mm, with a fellow photographer over coffee.

The issue is not with all housing manufacturers. Subal and Ikelite are affected, while Seacam and Aquatica are less so.

Alex

does the 3.9 inch diameter really matter for most housing port openings? the rear of the lens (zoom ring etc.) is not 3.9 inches, only the front is. the lens could be attached to the camera after the camera is mounted in the housing, as I usually do with my 17-55mm.

That way the 3.9 in diameter doesn't have to fit through the port opening. though i guess it depends on how much port extension is needed and if the fatter part of the lens needs to fit within an extension ring.

wouldn't the fixed shade on the 14-24mm would be more of a problem to fit in the port? what's the normal distance from a lens' front element to an 8 in port - would this shade fit in???

I am no expert though. Does this make sense?

Perhaps someone could make a business out of slicing off the attached hoods for UW shooters... might devalue the lens a bit though...

Great thread William!!!

the lens could be attached to the camera after the camera is mounted in the housing, as I usually do with my 17-55mm.

I have to agree with William again - it is highly undesirable to have to take the lens off every time you want to take the camera out of the housing. Some housings even require you to take the camera out of the housing to change the memory card or battery! Being in a salty and wet (even flying water sometimes) environment it makes good sens not to have to take the lens off if you don't have to.

Cheers

James

the lens could be attached to the camera after the camera is mounted in the housing, as I usually do with my 17-55mm.

I had my port extension bored out to get around this problem, and it sure is a lot easier.

The last fat lens in common use was the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED at 3.3 in diameter. This is the lens that sent all the Subal users to the lathe. Despite a special port, Ikelite still has no manual focus solution for this lens.

Before that was the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED which at 3.2 in just barely fit with a zoom gear in my Ikelite port (you actually have to mount the lens after the camera is in the housing making boat battery changes even more hazardous.).

The issue is not with all housing manufacturers. Subal and Ikelite are affected, while Seacam and Aquatica are less so.

First I want to say that I think Ikelite is a very good quality product according to its cost.

And that said, since I got an Ike housing and advance through the learning curve, I had been complaining about ports, shades, ext. rings (witch doesn’t exist), and all port system, not only the longitude of the ports, also its wide.

Let’s put a piece of my mind here:

I have 4 Ikelite ports including the new 8" dome with rings and a housing for my D50. Now I want a D300 and of course I want to house it, then It cross my mind... why should I pay 1400$ for a new housing (please not again the new back and plate issue.. he he) when I can pay near 2000$ for an Aquatica, witch is aluminum, have the Ikelite´s connectors for my strobes and iTTL, have a huge GLASS coated dome for FE and WA lens (huge as its price...), goes deeper (not that I care), supports better a good boat beat, have ext. ring system for super macro, and is wider on port diameter?

Searching in BH and Ryan´s, I realize that aquatica ports are not much more expensive than ikelite´s (except the party bowl for Doritos..).

Another example more related to this post, If you are an Ikelite user try to house a sigma 150mm macro, if you success now try to add a TC. Too wide, too long.

Of course I have to sell all my Ike gear to do the switch, but I don´t know, maybe I will or maybe I settle with another ike housing.. as I said they are good quality, but not too much for the versatility side...

I think its time to re-think the standard port design that is so limiting to these wider lenses now that 3.9 in is the new 3 in. I don't think it will do to continue with kluged up custom port solutions. Perhaps a wider port opening and a new set of wider port extensions should also be on the list for D300 and D3 housing designs.

does the 3.9 inch diameter really matter for most housing port openings? the rear of the lens (zoom ring etc.) is not 3.9 inches, only the front is. the lens could be attached to the camera after the camera is mounted in the housing, as I usually do with my 17-55mm.

 

That way the 3.9 in diameter doesn't have to fit through the port opening. though i guess it depends on how much port extension is needed and if the fatter part of the lens needs to fit within an extension ring.

 

wouldn't the fixed shade on the 14-24mm would be more of a problem to fit in the port? what's the normal distance from a lens' front element to an 8 in port - would this shade fit in???

 

I am no expert though. Does this make sense?

 

Perhaps someone could make a business out of slicing off the attached hoods for UW shooters... might devalue the lens a bit though...

Good question and good thread!

It depends on the port design and what dimension limits fitting any given lens. SEACAM bayonet ports and extension tubes have the same clearance (inside diameter) of 97 to 98mm (measured with a ruler). The new 14-24 lens has a diameter of 'approximately' 98mm thus fitting this lens seems doubtful. The lack of fit may be a matter of less than 1mm! One might be able to mount the lens on the camera while it is a housing from the front but without a port!

One solution would be for SEACAM to make a step-up port extension ring (somewhat analogous to filter step-up rings) and then to manufacture ports with a larger diameter mount. This would enable retrofitting the new port to existing housings. A similar solution may be appropriate to other brands. A potential downside is that a larger diameter mount may not be attachable directly to the housing as required by fisheye lenses. Maybe then a 0mm-extension adapter ring would be developed along with the port.

BTW, there have been a few other Nikon wideangles too wide to conveniently house - the $$! 6 and $! 8mm retrofocus fisheyes, & the $$! 13mm.

Tom

The new 14-24 lens has a diameter of 'approximately' 98mm thus fitting this lens seems doubtful. The lack of fit may be a matter of less than 1mm! One might be able to mount the lens on the camera while it is a housing from the front but without a port!

HAHA, yeah, putting the port over the front of the lens kinda matters huh?? excuse my blonde moment....

for the record i was going on 6 hrs of sleep over 2 nights when i posted. its been a long week...

my aquatica port opening is 98mm too... crikey! better get the file out...

BTW, there have been a few other Nikon wideangles too wide to conveniently house - the $$! 6 and $! 8mm retrofocus fisheyes, & the $$! 13mm.

Tom

True Tom, but these were super exotic lenses that not only due to their size but the peculiarities of thir use would have made them very difficult to impractical to use. The 6mm had an angle of view of 220 degrees and required the camera to be mirror locked, in addition to the fisheye dome sized front element. The 13 mm as a non AF, f5.6 lens and very rare/expensive is not likely to be widely used.

On the other hand I'll be the more practical 14-24mm will be widely used one way or another.

The trick will be to get the wide front lement with fixed shade through the first part of the extension. Unless the whole extension diameter is made larger, the only way I can see it done is to first mount the extension, then mount the lens inside it and finally mount the dome on the extension. With only Ikelite system experience, I think this would be very difficult and error prone. Standard 6" ports would be impossible, while a whole new version of the 8" port would be required. The front end simply would not fit through the base of the 8" port. The 3.4 in dia 105mm barely fits through those ports.

I don't see this as an odddity that can be ignored like the 6/8/13mm were. Even the fast mid-range zoom would not fit even without zoom clamps. What will the next crop of lenses bring? Especially as we look for fast full-frame zooms?

Ikelite might ignore this segment of the market for now, but I see full frame comming to the masses perhaps not on the next round of prosumer DSLRs (D90/D400) but certainly following (D500/D95?).

Chris

Amigos,

I'll take the opposing side here with some explanations of why.

* Super high end glass and some movement toward full frame bodies isn't dependent on UW use. Nikon, Canon, Olympus never will care about port throat diameters or using these underwater. We are a tiny, unimportant market segment

* Zooming underwater, especially with rectilinear zoom lenses is a major PITA to get all focal lengths reasonably sharp, especially in the corners. Don't take my word for it, do a search in the forums for "corner sharpness" and see how much this topic has been beat to death!!!

See Stephen Frink's latest test of the expensive NEW Canon 16-35mm II lens. And the end results

* For every UW shooter who buys a new mega-diameter lens, there will be 1,000 who want something lighter, cheaper, etc. So for UW use it's even a smaller market for any manufacturer to accommodate and justify $$$$$ for a new mold.

* I simply do not understand with current memory card sizes (and prices) plus the battery life on any dSLR why people even discuss opening their housings out on a salty, two or three tank dive trip. I don't, none of my fellow dSLR shooters do, who does?

Even if you did, any area away from waves, spray, sun and with proper preparation before opening it all shouldn't be as big a deal as people post here. Practice, people!

Many users who I've dived with, and have big diameter lense have even stopped putting the zoom sleeve and clamp on forcing themselves to go down on a dive and work one particular "view". They usually come back with better results, too

Since the port can stay sealed, this also means only opening the back and sliding the camera out to get to many brands for memory card changes. Battery needs changing? You obviously didn't do a decent beginning of day preparation.....

* Other than my recent use of the beautiful little Tokina 10-17mm I have found zooming all over the place on a dive to almost be counterproductive to working a subject from different angles, different lighting, etc.

* I think certain PRO caliber lenses, designed for full frame MAY keep getting bigger. But they won't be mainstream for many UW shooters.

Just one lowly UW shooter's opinion!

dhaas

Hi Dave,

I couldn't resist and beg to differ regarding Olympus. They have built all the DSLR housings around the 7-14 zoom, (14-28 equiv.) which works quite well in the housing without any resizing. I use mine all the time with the Athena 220 mm dome. Same glass Ryan will be using and it is outstanding!

I would be happy to let Steve Frink test the new "phat" lens against mine to see which should be the gold standard.

Phil Rudin

This one always cracks me up. Taking your camera out of the housing, or changing lenses should not be a "project." The proper way to do it should be: open housing remove camera. Not: take off port, take off lens, open housing, take out camera, etc.

I agree that not every lens in the Canon and Nikon lineup needs to be supported but it sure would be great if the popular wideangle zooms are, eh? I think the new Nikon zooms are going to be pretty popular w/ underwater photographers who are used to buying high-end equipment. No sense buying a >$5,000 D3x and putting a cheap 18-35ED lens on it right?

Hey but it fits through the port opening - lol.

Cheers

James

Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but I just can't help it. How hard is it to make the port opening a little bigger?

I KNEW I'd get James (and my buddy Phil to chime in!!!

Phil is right, Olympus in the land of super fast manufacturing either by luck of the draw or ??? made the front of their housing with a big throat. Plus I know Phil loves his Oly gear above all other brands

James, you're in a manufacturing world for a living.......Do you run out and build / buy a new mold every time something changes, albeit for a small portion of the market as I stated? Everyone think manufacturers should attend to the smallest part of any market. I wouldn't......And don't in my business.

Yes, "high end users" will likely keep buying mega-buck glass. In small quantities, especially underwater shooters. So I guess if I was Ikelite (I'm not) I would analyze if there is any cost to benefit there.

I guess my post about zooming UW and bagging the clamp / sleeve set up was lost in translation. Or maybe I didn't describe the reasons accurately. That it would allow one to leave their port sealed all day or ????? and keep shooting. Plus concentrate on one "view".

Maybe I'm wacko' and people ARE spending their dives zooming their lenses back and forth LOL!!!!

Leaving the port sealed and unscrewing one 1/4 - 20 tripod screw sure isn't a 30 minute project in my world. You ARE going to dry your hair, body, housing and strobe before you open the dang thing anyway, right?

There's room in the UW photography world for everyone to make choices. If you have to have these lenses that started this thread, buy a housing that supports it. If you can afford the lens and camera, why should you worry about the housing cost?

Again, all in fun discussion

dhaas

Dave,

If you're going to take your zoom gear off and dive the lens at one fixed focal length then you might as well buy a prime lens! lol.

I agree, leaving the port sealed and just pulling the camera out is the way to go. Can you do that with the 12-24DX or Canon 17-40? Hmm... I can. Even better is a housing with the camera mounted on a saddle that slides out - then you don't even have to undo a 1/4-20 screw!

Cheers

James

There's room in the UW photography world for everyone to make choices. If you have to have these lenses that started this thread, buy a housing that supports it. If you can afford the lens and camera, why should you worry about the housing cost?

Exactly!! So there is absolutely no need to try to convince people not to buy those lenses (or housings that support them) or to give up using zooms for that matter. It all comes down to what you will be using your camera for, there is a lot of people that can't live without high quality zooms, or have to use manual focus on their macros for critical focus...

The debate over this lens is mmmmmmm, quite interesting , the price of the lens alone should narrow down the field of user, as for the throat resizing, well its a bit touchy for most manufacturer, if you have to redesign a port mount to the extent that the existing ones wont fit, then you risk ending up with the Canon syndrome, when I was forced to switch all my Canon manual equipment because it became obsolete overnight it didn't make me too keen on spending my cash on the C brand, Nikon gained a customer and Canon lost one simple as that, housing system have become investment for zealots like us, so being told your system is a dead end all off a sudden is not going to make anybody happy with that manufacturer. This being said Super Wide are notoriously obese due to the amount of glass needed for correction and I doubt anything "practical" would outsize this in the future.

Remain to be seen how well the lens will perform behind a dome, its 98mm diameter is at par with our throat opening, but seriously, I doubt anybody will want to use K.Y. to insert the damm thing into the dome. The part I don't like about Nikon's technical info is the Aprox header, is it 98.25 mm or 97.75mm, There is still room for us to shave a bit of our throat opening without reinventing the wheel and the team will be looking into it as soon as can be done.

BTW the phone is NOT ringing of the hook with request for that lenses, so far its been mostly armchair conversation on forums and no need to get an extra shift in the engineering dept. Once we have the D3 and the lens we will know more and you'll get it straight from the horses mouth I promise.

Oh! and anybody that think they can slide that sucker out of a housing with the camera attached should get off thoses pills

Cheers

Amigos,

Just in from two Harp beers (OK, 3!) and had to check on this thread

My good Canadian friend, Jean is adding a voice of reason on manufacturer's responding too fast to what will likely prove to be a small demand.

Thank God Jean can drink beer to enable clear thinking, too (Or so I hear!)

James, you know I love debating you!

Yes, I think 72mm is maybe the largest diameter you can shove down an Ikelite port barrel once a port is sealed pre-setting a focal length on any zoom lenses that will never be super sharp anyway.

But buying a $1,200.00 prime lens for a cropped sensor dSLR? I don't think so!!! LOL.....

Man, I should ALWAYS answer these posts after imbibing as I seem to type slower and more clearly......

Let's just all go make good underwater photos !!!!

dhaas

I think time will tell wether this lens will be used widely by underwater photographers.

I predict that it will and that the lenses will keep getting fatter.

Oly users for the time being won't have this problem because of their small format. But they are not immune from the laws of physics and I predict that if they want to go after the high end market they will need to change their sensor size as well. Then they will be in the same boat.

I agree with David, its a bad idea to change lenses on the boat. I further agree that zooming is supurflious. I don't zoom much at all with my 12-24mm and sometimes don't even bother to install the zoom gear.

Either way, even if you forgo the zoom clamp, this lens won't fit in an Ikelite port or even the standard 8" dome, requiring yet another custom port.

And I don't think that this lens will be an anomoly either. Based on the current trend, many more lenses, even primes, will be wider than their older versions. The 105mm VR is a prime and so is the Canon 50mm f1.2. Fast aperture and large format means wider optical diameters. Add features like VR and you have a problem with current housing designs.

But I still see this lens being attractive. Many online have suggested that this lens will surpass the older 14mm prime so for WA this may be the best choice topside or underwater. Even on a DX sensor the f 2.8 would be very useful if you want to use magic filters for WA panoramas.

So this is a question we can choose to deal with now or later. Later is more painful.

The question is relevant.

It's easy to say one doesn't need these new fat lenses and one shouldn't be doing this and that on a 3 tank dive, but that ignores the issue.

If someone is starting from scratch buying a camera outfit, why take lenses off the table as possible choices just because housings are designed without big enough port diameters? How much sense would it make if someday only discontinued lenses worked with your housing? (I would wager that the 105mm will discontinued at some point)

It's easy to say you don't need a feature when you can't provide it. Olympus said we didn't need an AF SLR. Thanks, Canon!

At the moment, we have a Ikelite and Aquatica housing in play. I don't care how big a card and battery you have, when it's time to change the Ikelite wide angle at the end of the day, it just seems so wrong. Somehow, telling me I shouldn't have to zoom (add it the "real photographer's don't...." list) doesn't make me less peeved about the design.

If leaving the zoom gear on the boat results in better pictures, then maybe we should prelock our focus as well. After all, we're supposed to get close. What better way to force that than to disable focus?

You can't advocate choice while arguing against zooms. Sure, primes can do the job, but they are more suited to a diver that is logging 300 hours of bottom time a year than one that's only getting 30. Zooms offer a compelling feature that no prime can and it makes no sense to ignore that. Yes, zooms are problematic to house. Primes are, too, and manufacturers should be looking at how to fix that. Video cameras have figured out how to provide close focus and zoom-through with wide angle optics. The resolution isn't there but it's improving and the RED is now threatening with its 11MP. To top it all off, Nikon says that the 14-24 offers better performance than ANY of their primes in that focal range. Any Nikon-mount user interested in 14-24 would have to consider that. The thing is that 14-24 isn't all that interesting for the DX shooter as has been pointed out in other threads.

It's not surprising that the 14-24 hasn't generated underwater interest so far. It doesn't exist yet and neither does the camera that's needed to make it interesting. Wait a few months! The D3 itself isn't even the camera that will appeal most to underwater shooters. I don't think the strong demand for housing this lens will be on us right away but I'd be surprised if it didn't come.

Small port throats may cost less or be easier to make with manual focus controls, but not only do larger throats accomodate more lenses, they offer better bouyancy. With these bigger lenses, housing manufacturers with larger ports start looking better. I already consider a ~100mm opening a practical requirement going forward (at least for the high end).

Speaking of too small a throat diameter, all wet diopters that are powerful enough have too small an aperture. 67mm may be a good size for digicams but not for SLRs. The Macromate is large but it's aperture is no different than Inon's 67mm wet diopters and Epoque's is even smaller. None can be used with lenses smaller than 100mm AFAIK. 50/60mm might like some boost as well. Come on, manufacturers, choose a bigger size, say 86mm, standardize on it, and begin offering standard mounts onto your macro ports! Almost every shooter on my last trip had some sort of wet diopter solution beyond a Woody's. It's kind of an obvious thing to do as far as I'm concerned.