Should I get the Tokina 10-17, the 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20??

Im having a hard time deciding this one..

Has anyone used the 12-24 underwater? I understand that there is allot of distortion with the 10-17 but many people seem to be quite happy with it and prefer it over the Sigma....

Thanks

Phil

Im having a hard time deciding this one..

 

Has anyone used the 12-24 underwater? I understand that there is allot of distortion with the 10-17 but many people seem to be quite happy with it and prefer it over the Sigma....

Thanks

Phil

I used the Tokina 12-24 and didn't like it. I bought the 10-17 and love it.

Do a search in the forum. You should find plenty of discussion on this topic.

10-17 no doubt about it. But remember even when all three are WA lens, the 10-17 is a FE lens, so there is no exact comparission between them...

12-24 and 10-20 aren´t so wide or focus that close... but still both are great rectilinear lens for topside and underwater photography.

Underwater you didn´t notice as much distortion as topside with the tokina.

If you have the extra buck, get both.

Unfortunatelly, there isn't a straight answer to your question. You will most certainly find people who are happy with all three alternatives. It all depends on what you're after and how well the lens works with your housing/port. But the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24 (or Nikon 12-24 or Canon 10-22) do more or less the same job. They're all wide rectilinear zooms. The Sigma and the Canon has a better CFD than the others, which will make them a bit more suitable to use behind a dome port. The Tokina and Nikon are f4 throughout the zoom range while the Sigma is 5.6 at the narrow end. There are small differences optically, but personally I found the better CFD of the Sigma to be of much more importance for a sharp end result UW than any optical differences/advantages on land. It's common to have more or less soft corners/edges with the wide, rectilinear zooms.

The Tokina is a fisheye and it will replace the Nikon 10,5, the Sigma 15 and Nikon 16 mm FE. At the narrowest end, it will give you approximately the same FoV as the widest end of the rectilinear zooms (circa 100°). It produces curved lines and a lot of barrel distortion. Most find it acceptable UW, but not on land. It's possible to correct in the computer aferwards. One of the great advantages, besides the larger FoV, is that a FE can give you better corner and edge sharpness compared to a rectilinear lens, when put behind a dome port.

So, the bottom line. You need one of each to have a complete WA-arsenal, 60-180° FoV. So the qustion is: which one to get first? Probably you cab answer that question best.

cheers

Thanks guys, you gave me all the info I needed to know.

Phil

Well I eded up getting a sweet deal on a 12~24 and yesterday was the first time in the water with it.. I have to say that Im liking it so far... Of course yesterday was also the first day I have had a DSLR underwater as well so I have allot to learn, but I got a few good pics.

Phil

That is very impressive for a first time, Phil. I think you have been shooting UW before, but with another system.

cheers

nice photos Phil, esp. the 3rd one

That is very impressive for a first time, Phil. I think you have been shooting UW before, but with another system.

 

cheers

I have done a little bit of shotting with a point and shoot underwater, but those are the first time with a DSLR. Although I Have worked as a profesional sports photog, shooting underwater is totally different!

Phil