Tokina UWA or Fish Eye

Good afternon,

I am new to this forum but already very happy to have found it. The last weeks I have been studying and now I am even more confused. I hope you can explain/ help me out. I thought the Tokina 10 -17 mm was the right choice for me. But reading this forum I learned it is a fish eye. Now Tokina announced the new 11 -16 mm UWA.

First of all can some one explain the difference. I want to use my lens underwater and above the surface. I use a Nikon D50 with a iIelite housing. I have to buy a dome, for the Tokina, I kow.Most pictures will be taken in the Maldives, not always during the main season, so the visibility is not always perfect. But always better than in Holland.

Secondly I would like an advice, should I but the Fish eye or wait for the new one UWA

Thank you very much

Bert

The Tokina 11-16 does look like a very interesting lens, but it is not even available yet at B&H. Underwater, a fisheye lens works very well for wide angle without the obvious distortion on land (except very close up) Fisheyes in the past have also provided better corner sharpness underwater than ultrawide (weitwinkel) angle lenses. As you can see now on this forum, the Tokina 10-17 is a very popular lens with fisheye on the 10 end and closer to rectilinear on the 17 end. I don't think you can go wrong with the 10-17, but if you can wait till there is more information on the 11-17 underwater, what diopter will be needed etc, you may want to do that. If you want to be the first to try and give us all that information that will be really great.

Thank you Loftus for your fast reply.

I will definately wait for the 11-16, but buying it depends on price as well. I read on the Tokina European site that it's scheduled for end of March.

hey dutchybert,

the tokina 11-16 is a rectilinear lens, so I would compare it to the nikon 12-24, tokina 12-24, and sigma 10-20.

here are some fisheye phots:

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/fisheye.html

another thing to note, the tokina 10-17 and tokina 11-16 (or 12-24) will have different angles of coverage, you can't compare the "mm width" of a fisheye lens with a rectilinear lens.

a fisheye lens at 11mm will be much wider than a rectilinear lens at 11mm...

many underwater photographers own a fisheye lens and a wide-angle rectilinear, since they are good for different types of shots. the sigma 10-20 is often used for wrecks, and the nikon 12-24 or tokina 12-24 is good for sharks and other large, shy fish (e.g. - a galapagos trip)

if I were you, I'd buy the tokina 10-17 and the tokina 12-24, you can get both for around the same price the tokina 11-16 will sell for.. unless you really need a 2.8 lens for some reason (and some people do).

hope this helps

Scott

Goedenavond Bert,

It looks like you are dead set on a rectangular instead of the fisheye. Your post reads that you see it as a magor disadvantage, instead of an advantage. And there are some:

* The widest view angle of the rectangular 11-16 will only be the "zoomed in" image of the Tokina Fisheye. The fisheye will give you way more angle.

* the corner sharpness that loftus was mentioning, wide angle zooms often have soft corners behind the dome, while the fisheye zoom doenst have that problem

* closest focus distance is 14 cm, and 30 cm (according to specs) for the 11-16.

the disadvantage is that the fisheye zoom is off more limited use above water, due to chromatic abberation and the fisheye effect. (you can always correct these in photoshop or similar).

If topside is your main interest, go for the 11-16mm, if underwater, I would choose the 10-17mm FE.

This is from an perspective of owning a sigma 15mm FE, which on my camera is probably around the longer end of the fisheye zoom. The Tokina wasnt or was just available when I bougt the 15mm, and I would have gottten the Tokina with the knowledge now....

fellow cloggy Gerard

Thank you all for the replies.

Think will go for the 10 17 after reading your comments, as I will probably use it underwater more:)

Thanks again