Insanely Good

Ken Rockwell has gotten his hands on a preview version of the 14-24mm and really liked it. Not that his review are the most technical out there but he usually is the first onne to provide a review.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

I predict that this lens will be very popular underwater--especially as the FX format takes hold. I don't think ignoring this lenses large dimensions will be an option for most housing designers.

The real pity with this lens is that it seems not to have a rear gel slot. If anyone else gets their hands on one can you confirm this? I guess we'll all have to duct tape our filters on this one.

I predict that this lens will be very popular underwater--especially as the FX format takes hold. I don't think ignoring this lenses large dimensions will be an option for most housing designers.

I disagree here. First, the lens is too wide for many housing manufacturers, I think the only ones that will be able to accommodate it without a port system change are Seacam and Aquatica. Second, it doesn't take filters, so it doesn't take diopters. It will be very hard to make it work properly behind a dome port.

I think that a lens that will gain popularity underwater in the FX format underwater is the 17-35, which also received stellar reviews back in the film days. It is also of very nice quality and has a slightly longer reach.

I have to agree with Rocha. ultra-wide (weitwinkel) lenses are performance limited underwater because domes create curvature of the image. No matter how good an utra-wide is above water, underwater its centre may be very good but edges and corners are limited by dome/diopter/alignment issues. It might well be time to re-evaluate the 17~35/2.8 though as Rocha says!

I am looking forward to regain the full potential of my 17-35, what a marvel of optical design, Gee i'm glad I stuck to it. Now If only the bloody D3 can show up so that we can get to work.

I agree with Paul & Rocha about the problematic of ultra wide (weitwinkel) lens, as of now we can accomodate that baby in our port system, and once I can run optical axis test on the lens itself and take it underwater i'll have a better grasp of this lenses potential. if it turns out to be a contender, then I see were we would have an edge as a manufacturer, it also clear that this one will require our large dome and substensial extension if we want to get any kind of result. tic, toc, tic, toc time will tell.

Darn, couple days earlier and I could have checked the gel option and any other questions. Had a D3, D300, 14-24 and several other cool lenses to play with on a local nikon pro day. The d300 seems like a really cool camera, it'll be very popular. The d3 is also quite nice, but I didnt get to hold it that long. The live preview seemed to work great. On both cameras the screen was awesome.

Cor

I just came back from spending a weekend with the D3, the D300 and the 14-24 F:2,8

As I mentionned in a previous post there is no provision for rear filter and the rear element does a lot of moving around, i'm sure there is a way to attach my beloved magic filter to the back, but it would have to be done in such a secure way as not to fly away into the shutter with the disastrous consequence one can imagine.

I tested the lens against my prime Nikkor 14mm and there is quite an improvement on the 14-24, light falloff is noticeable on the prime 14mm the moment you put both side by side with the zoom results. I'm pretty confident this lens will prove popular, now as soon as I can get the D3 housing i'll test it u/w on a grid to see the edge performance.

BTW the D3 fit in the front of our D2x housing with all the front controls functional except the metering selector, so i'll need to talk to engineering and see if a retrofit package can be made for the D2x, that would help lower the cost of migrating to the D3 (which is the most amazing camera i've had the oportunity to work with in 35 years of handling, selling and repairing cameras for a living ), underwater available light photography will never be the same from now on.

The Megadome will ship from now on with the wider throat to accept this baby, here is a shot of a D3 in a housing with the 14-24, megadome and extension.

and one set up with the D2x

BTW the D3 fit in the front of our D2x housing with all the front controls functional except the metering selector, so i'll need to talk to engineering and see if a retrofit package can be made for the D2x

your name ain't Santa by any chance? This along with your post on the D300 fitting the front of the aquatica D200 housing just made a lot of Aquatica Nikon fans real happy this holiday season...

When I grow up i want an aquatica... you guys rock!

Do you take trade in with other manufacturers equipment!

Do you take trade in with other manufacturers equipment!

Gee, sorry I got all the book end I need already

Hi Jean,

if you're able to retrofit the D2x housing would it still be usable for that camera or only the D3? Also do you need the new megadone for the 14-24mm or will the older 8" dome work? thanks

Kyle

The Megadome will ship from now on with the wider throat to accept this baby, here is a shot of a D3 in a housing with the 14-24, megadome and extension.

Amazing Jean! The new toys look fantastic.

I think you are on the right track. Upping the standards to accept larger lens diameters will pay dividends for you I'm sure. I'm excited to see what kind of improvement this lens will make to underwater photography. I don't think we have seen the last of these fat lenses. I'm sure that supporting this lens will make many new Aquatica fans!

In response to Rocha's comments, I fully agree that a port system change will be required in most instances but that changing to a fatter port system standard will be inevitable as lenses progressively get fatter. This is just the latest incarnation of an evolution that started with the Sigma 12-24mm. This trend of packing features into lenses is not exclusively a feature of WA lenses, the Nikon 105mm VR gave many port systems trouble too. This trend was only interupted by the cropped sensor system. As we evolve back to FF this need will become more and more apperrant.

Too bad there is no filter holder. I hope Alex can get ahold of one of these and devise a solution. I'm convinced that the combination of high ISO in the D3 and ultra wide (weitwinkel) F2.8 is a killer combo for filters.

Sory guy's I was off line for a bit, Kyle the older ports will not accept the 14-24, but we have redesigned all our dome port to accept this new lens (even the 6" dome port) and every thing shipping from now on will be with the new throat aperture, this being said, I would fork out the cash and get the larger Megadome if one is to get this lens. the larger radius of this dome is a definitive step in the right direction.

And UWphotonewbie, you are right the combo of D3, 14-24 and magic filter will be a spectacular combo. Yeah I hope they find a way to hold this filter in a secure way, you don't want it falling off and getting jammed in such an expensive shutter , on the subject of getting larger diameter, I suspect that only if they did come out with a full frame 10, 11 or 12mm zoom lens of similar speed would it be larger than this one. it's a tough call for the manufacturers, changing and adapting our dimension in this case was not a big deal and we are happy to accomodate the potential users of this lens, but redesigning the port bayonnet and concept, well... i'm just happy our engineer at the time had the insight to foresee this need. Anybody remember the 15mm 3.5 and the 13mm F2.8? large lenses are not a novelty, they have been around for a while, its just that they are not that popular (maybe the asking price for these has something to do with this )