Aquatica 9.25" dome port

For comparison, here are a couple of shots with the D3/14-24mm combo using the Sea&Sea D3 housing and 8" glass port. These were shot at 14mm, f/5.

Hey Warren - Thanks for the real life samples. No offense to you of course, but the corners are pretty grim at F5. What port extension did you use with the 8" dome port?

So far I'm thinking that the Canon 16-35mm II is looking pretty good as a benchmark for a wide zoom on a full frame camera.

Jean - Thanks also for your tests. Very nicely done. Would it be too much of an imposition to see the 17-35 tested under identical conditions? It would be very interesting to see how the 14-24 and 17-35 compare in the corners at Actual Pixels, at a working aperture we are likely to use underwater ... say F-8. Two lenses, two ports, side-by-side comparisons. Whattcha say?

Hi Stephen, I actually did the test 17-35mm, but i let my assistant/good friend do the shooting underwater on that lens while I took a rest and warmed myself a bit, (hey! no warm Florida pool for this boy, water is still nippy up here ) anyway, he did not set the tripod forward to get the target from corner to corner, my bad mostly for not reminding him , nonetheless I will post the shot tommorrow (they are at the office), but the obvious result are as expected, not as wide but better corner than the 14-24. still I would like to give that 14-24 with the Megadome a spin around a reef, at f:8 with a carefull composition...

I will try and get some more testing in next week and possibly redo the 17-35 and 14-24 as a more side by side. I also plan to run some more lenses on the D3 as well as the D300 or D200 cropped camera and possibly the 1Ds mk III with your favorite chunk of silica, the 16-35mm.

Hi Stephen, I actually did the test 17-35mm, but i let my assistant/good friend do the shooting underwater on that lens while I took a rest and warmed myself a bit, (hey! no warm Florida pool for this boy, water is still nippy up here ) anyway, he did not set the tripod forward to get the target from corner to corner, my bad mostly for not reminding him , nonetheless I will post the shot tommorrow (they are at the office), but the obvious result are as expected, not as wide but better corner than the 14-24. still I would like to give that 14-24 with the Megadome a spin around a reef, at f:8 with a carefull composition...

 

I will try and get some more testing in next week and possibly redo the 17-35 and 14-24 as a more side by side. I also plan to run some more lenses on the D3 as well as the D300 or D200 cropped camera and possibly the 1Ds mk III with your favorite chunk of silica, the 16-35mm.

Cool. Please make sure it is the 16-35mmII (drastically different & better lens than original 16-35) and my best luck has been with a port extension 57.5mm long with 9" superdome. Give us them all at F8 ... that would be a fabulous comparison. Looking forward to your observations!

I'd like to see the 14-24 at 17mm compared to the 17-35 at 17mm. How much of the problem is field of view as opposed to the lens and dome interaction.

Hey Warren - Thanks for the real life samples. No offense to you of course, but the corners are pretty grim at F5. What port extension did you use with the 8" dome port?

 

So far I'm thinking that the Canon 16-35mm II is looking pretty good as a benchmark for a wide zoom on a full frame camera.

 

Jean - Thanks also for your tests. Very nicely done. Would it be too much of an imposition to see the 17-35 tested under identical conditions? It would be very interesting to see how the 14-24 and 17-35 compare in the corners at Actual Pixels, at a working aperture we are likely to use underwater ... say F-8. Two lenses, two ports, side-by-side comparisons. Whattcha say?

Yah, I know. You'd have to ask Ryan what extension was being used as it was his Sea&Sea D3 housing and port setup he brought for me to use during our week at Innerspace in Cayman. I didn't have my Aquatica housing at the time and he kindly offered to bring one for me to use so I could test out the 8" glass dome with the 14-24mm. At first, it seemed decent until I got the images on the computer.

If the results with 9.25" megadome seem decent, I may be convinced to go that way, depending on how much I'd have to stop down.

I'd like to see the 14-24 at 17mm compared to the 17-35 at 17mm. How much of the problem is field of view as opposed to the lens and dome interaction.

Absolutely! One needs to compare same FL and same formats!

Here is a link showing the entrance pupil of several Nikkors including the new 14-24.

http://www.vrphotography.com/data/pages/te...lenschoice.html

One can see how far forward it is. If the center of curvature of a given port is positioned not close to the entrance pupil it won't matter much whether your port is 8" or whatever.

It would be better if folks specified the radius of curvature ( r ) of a given port rather than its diameter (generally the specified diameter is not well defined). A larger diameter port may have a smaller r than a smaller diameter port. For example, the SEACAM 6" diameter fisheye port (a full hemisphere, thus r ~ 3") has a smaller r than their 4" diameter dome ports (<< hemisphere, r >> 3").

Ok, I just bit the bullet and ordered the 9.25" dome based on Jean's photos. I'll post a few samples once I'va had a chance to shoot it a bit. It should come in handy on my Bahamas trip in a few weeks.

Here are a couple of sample shots of the 14-24mm zoom @ 14mm on the D3 behind the 9.25" megadome.

This one is shot at f/5.6.

This one is shot at f/8.0

Wow, pretty good performance!

James

I just got back from a dive trip to the Turks and Caicos, where I tried to use the Nikon 14-24mm in the 8" dome port. To my dismay and surprise, I couldn't get the lens past the extension ring. The lens shade seemed slightly too wide to fit through the ring.

Has anyone experienced this and found a way around it, like removing the lens shade? I couldn't find a way to remove the shade without breaking it.

The older (pre 2008) dome where too tight for the 14-24mm, we have since opened up the throat of our extensions and dome to accomodate this baby. in you case you if you want to uses the 14-24mm, you will need to get a new dome port, as for the extensions, you can use the same, just put the extension on the housing first, then install the lens and then the new type dome port.

There is no graceful way to remove the shade from the 14-24mm, and having it removed by Nikon or a service center is likely costly and will leave your front element exposed.

Thanks Warren for posting the shots, its always nice to have field report validating my borring but necessary academic pool stuff

For further comparison, this is the D3 with the 16mm fisheye behind the 9.25" megadome (no port extension). This was shot at f/11. As expected, no corner sharpness issues.

For comparison, here are a couple of shots with the D3/14-24mm combo using the Sea&Sea D3 housing and 8" glass port. These were shot at 14mm, f/5.

I also want to know what kinds of zoom gear can fit this lenes. thx

I also want to know what kinds of zoom gear can fit this lenes. thx

I got whatever zoom ring was standard for the 14-24 from Aquatica for their housing. Seems to work fine. It also fits on the 24-70 as well.

I got whatever zoom ring was standard for the 14-24 from Aquatica for their housing. Seems to work fine. It also fits on the 24-70 as well.

Does it fit in S&S housing?

Does it fit in S&S housing?

I don't think the Aquatica would work with the S&S housing. I used a zoom ring specifically for the S&S housing. I can't remember which one - Ryan would know as he set me up with the housing.

I don't think the Aquatica would work with the S&S housing. I used a zoom ring specifically for the S&S housing. I can't remember which one - Ryan would know as he set me up with the housing.

THX reply. I don't want to buy a wrong ring.