Full Frame U/W Lenses

So ... it seems pretty clear that if you have a cropped-sensor DSLR, there is pretty solid-seeming consensus on lenses for underwater use. I'm seriously debating the purchase of a Nikon D700 and was thinking about what would be the ideal set of "go to" underwater lenses for a Nikon FF camera...

Macro seems simpler. To keep this thread somewhat focused*, let's stick to Wide Angle.

Is there something in the Nikon FF world that is comparable to the Tokina 10-17 FE?

Which is better underwater the 12-24 or the 17-35? Can you get the same corner sharpness out of either of these that folks seem to get with the 10.5 FE and the 10-17 FE on cropped-sensors?

* No pun intended.

So ... it seems pretty clear that if you have a cropped-sensor DSLR, there is pretty solid-seeming consensus on lenses for underwater use. I'm seriously debating the purchase of a Nikon D700 and was thinking about what would be the ideal set of "go to" underwater lenses for a Nikon FF camera...

 

Macro seems simpler. To keep this thread somewhat focused*, let's stick to Wide Angle.

 

Is there something in the Nikon FF world that is comparable to the Tokina 10-17 FE?

 

Which is better underwater the 12-24 or the 17-35? Can you get the same corner sharpness out of either of these that folks seem to get with the 10.5 FE and the 10-17 FE on cropped-sensors?

* No pun intended.

I have never shot FF but from reading a lot of people I would say:

- 12-24 is NOT FF (unless you use the sigma of which I have no knowledge).

- 17-35 is a great lens and one I would buy if I went FF.

- Nikon 16mm FE or sigma 15mm FE are the FF equivalents of nikon 10.5mmFE

- There is no 10-17 equivalent in FF...

- 12-24 is NOT FF (unless you use the sigma of which I have no knowledge).

Thanks!

Sorry, I meant the FX 14-24mm F2.8 G ED AF-S, not the DX 12-24.

So ... it seems pretty clear that if you have a cropped-sensor DSLR, there is pretty solid-seeming consensus on lenses for underwater use. I'm seriously debating the purchase of a Nikon D700 and was thinking about what would be the ideal set of "go to" underwater lenses for a Nikon FF camera...

 

Macro seems simpler. To keep this thread somewhat focused*, let's stick to Wide Angle.

 

Is there something in the Nikon FF world that is comparable to the Tokina 10-17 FE?

 

Which is better underwater the 12-24 or the 17-35? Can you get the same corner sharpness out of either of these that folks seem to get with the 10.5 FE and the 10-17 FE on cropped-sensors?

* No pun intended.

It's hard to get similar corner sharpness on a rectilinear lens behind a dome port versus a fisheye lens. You may need to use diopters, but that's just the way it is. The 16mm fisheye on the FX sensor is similar to the 10.5mm fisheye on the DX sensor. I do tend to think, though, since I own both, that the 10.5mm is a bit sharper than the 16mm. The 14-24mm is the one that is much talked about for the FX sensor, but the issue with this is the corner sharpness. Being a rectilinear lens and not having the capability to add a front mounted dioptre, getting decent corner sharpness with this lens is an issue. I have had teh 14-24mm behind and 8" dome on my FX camera and have not had great results on corner sharpness.

Sigma 12-24 is a FF lens and pretty decent.

It's so wide that it requires a monster dome and aperture above F8-11 to get good results.

Cheers

James

I have a D700 on order, should get it next week.

I'm not sure yet whether I will even try to house it, or go the D300 route for UW.

So far from what I've read the 14-24 may be a non-starter, and the 17-35 which I have and my 16 may be the wides to use with FX.

I think we can take some advice from the Canon FF shooters as to their favorite wide lenses as a place to start, and how to use them, diopters needed etc. It would make sense that Nikon FF users will want to use similar lenses.

Hi jeremy. I've been shooting the D3 U/W since January. I have the 14 prime and the 17 - 35. Due to the FF issues with aberations in an off-the-shelf dome, I find that the 17 - 35 is the best choice right now. I would love to see a mfg come up with a port for the 14 & 14 -24 so I could shoot down to f8 or so, but right now, f11 seems to be as open as I can go before the aberation monster mungs up the corners.

I haven't needed a diopter for the 17-35 for CFWA but I know many people would disagree.

Alex M has some pretty good points about the FF vs. crop sensor debate, but hopefully port makers will step up to the plate for the wide angle lens.

Hope this helps.

I have a D700 on order, should get it next week.

I'm not sure yet whether I will even try to house it, or go the D300 route for UW.

I know I said I'm "debating" ... but I did order one, too.

Just not sure I'll keep it. I ordered mine from amazon on July 5th ... but no clue when it will get here.

My head is spinning ... but everytime I play with my buddy's D3 and shoot at ISO 6400 I think:

"DANG, I gotta get one"

... and when it want "on sale" - ie the D700 was announced - the math changed and I ordered one.

Part of me says stick with the G9 for everything (that part is losing lately).

Part of me says stick with the G9 underwater and get a D700 for topside.

Part of me says get a D300 (or 40D) and house it and keep the G9 for backup.

Part of me says get the D700 and house it.

I am really intrigued by the possibilities of high ISO underwater photography ... seems like fertile ground for "new" stuff.

If one switches to full frame dslr, what kind of results can be expected with a full frame camera, dx lens combo?

If one switches to full frame dslr, what kind of results can be expected with a full frame camera, dx lens combo?

The D700 in "DX mode" is like a 5.1MP CMOS sensor cropped-sensor DSLR in a D300 body. You literally crop the image on the sensor itself.