Owners of both 12-24 and 10-17 fisheye

Really, just wondering what you guys are shooting out there. This question is for people who own both the Tok 10-17 fisheye and the 12-24 W/A or a comparable lens. Do I really need both? Is the 10-17 95% of what I need along with macro?

I understand some of you photogs out there probably use 10 different lenses with a myriad of ports, but really, what gets 95% of the shots and why?

thanks!

JP

I have never been totally happy with my 12-24 corner sharpness underwater, so I use it occasionally, but mostly use the 10-17 and 17-35 for all my wide angle.

The 12-24 is still an excellent lens for big critters (shark size) that won't come close enough for the 10-17. And I use it topside when I don't want fisheye distortion.

I use the 10-17 more, but wouldn't give up the 12-24.

Edge sharpness on the 12-24 is fine if you use a diopter, even thou it will focus close enough for use with a dome.

I've been using a +4 with my Nexus D70 setup with FP170 port.

HI All,

I use the 12/24mm with a 4x diopter & find it a great lens, I am now in thinking of getting a 10/17 fisheye so I can get a different veiw

of the subject. I hope that both lens have their own merits to be used.

Andy

Edge sharp on the 12-24 is fine if you use a diopter, even thou it will focus close enough for use with a dome.

I've been using a +4 with my Nexus D70 setup with FP170 port.

Does not work for me, +2 or +4 diopter with Subal 8" dome, maybe I'm just too picky, but also between the 10-17 and 17-35 I have all bases covered with no sharpness issues at all, so I never have a reason to use my 12-24 underwater anymore.

I used the 12-24 with the Nexus 170 and didn't like the performance regardless of configuration. I don't feel the 12-24 works well with diopters, but certainly with the +2 in the Nexus dome I was not happy. I chose to shoot without the diopter until I switched to fisheye.

Don't have either, but have the 10.5 and the Sigma 10-20, which sort of (in part) serves the same needs. And I use them both. Roughly, I'd use the rectilinear zoom for people, wrecks, mediumsized schools and bigger, shy animals like sharks. I would also use it for mammals like seals. The 10.5 for reef views/seascapes (incl. cfwa), over/unders and big social animals like whalesharks and manta rays.

/christian

A sub-question: Using the 10-17mm Fisheye at 17mm -- do you still have to get to close to large animals when zoomed all the way out to use the fisheye instead of a W/A? In other words, using the 10-17mm at 17, is that somewhat equivalent to 12/14mm W/A?

JP

I am very surprised that two people said they own both and use the 12-24mm most or all of the time.

I found edge sharpness with the 12-24mm with the Subal to be poor to marginal. I found it to be piss poor with the 8" Aquatica dome and not lousy, but not perfect with the 9.25" Aquatica dome. Diopters really didn't solve the problem with either system.

I'm just really surprised at how well the Tokina 10-17mm performed. I have plenty of shots from the 10-17mm and 12-24mm from Raja. All the keepers were with the 10-17mm. Not one 12-24mm shot met my standards of sharpness.

I love the 12-24 for topside use but underwater I'm exclusively using the 10-17. The range is very versatile and the corners are actually sharp (Subal Dome). Note though that I don't do a lot of big-animal stuff. I could see the 12-24 being useful for that, especially against a blue background where the corners don't matter. Maybe also for certain types of wreck photography where you might want straight lines.

BTW I find that I get better pictures with the 10-17 if I resist the urge to shoot at 10 unless I really have to. Lighting is tricky at 180 degrees. At 17mm the 10-17 is still about 100 degrees which is still pretty wide but more forgiving from a lighting standpoint and is about the same field of view as the 12-24 at 12mm. The distortion is minimized at that range too so if you don't have straight lines around the edges of your composition you really don't notice the fisheye effect that much.

Clinton

They are two totally different lenses and I use them both equally. I am mostly a wide angle shooter and I love the sharpness 10-17 but there are still many shots I cannot get with that lens. The 12-24 isn't perfect, but it does the job nicely in my Sea & Sea housing/fisheye dome port + extension. I also use a +2 diopter. I couldn't give up either one of them. I have learned on a recent trip that the 10-17 also has a little bit of fuzziness on the far ends of the zoom. Have yet to document this, but noticed images were not quite as sharp when I was zoomed all the way in or out.

Just for reference - I have found that the suggested manufacturer's setup for the 12-24 lens may or may not be the optimum. Did quite a bit of testing in a pool & big tub of water with different extension rings & diopters. I was primarily looking for edge sharpness. Got the best results with the FP170 dome, 40mm ext ring & +4 diopter. (+2 didn't work. Couldn't test a +3.) Strangely the Nexus custom 12-24 port doesn't work - vignettes at WA.

I agree with Jim. I have been very happy with the 12-24m once I started using stronger dioptres than the manufacturer suggested. For reef shooting I use a +4 and for big animals I use +3. Although most of the time I use a Tokina 10-17mm!

Alex

i love it when some else has asked the exact question i wanted to as the day before and all the questions are answered. a canon 500D is a +4 yep? guess i'll have to give it a spin so long as it fits behind Ikelite port for my tolk 12-24.

A 500D is a +2. The 250D is a +4. I wouldn't use that style diopter on the 12-24.

funny, i thought it was the other way round. well it fits, but touches the port so under water the lens will be taking the pressure from the depth i'm at, so probably not a good idea. what brand dioptres are you guys using?

If the diopter touches the inside surface of the dome it may also be scratching it. This is not good. Scratches on the outside fill in with water & are usually not noticeable. Scratches on the inside will be noticed.

If the mounting ring of the diopter is too wide to fit without touching the dome (as mine was) is may be possible to machine or cut it narrower (my solution). Make sure to remove the lens from the ring first.

The Canon diopters (and the Inon ones) are numbered as 1000mm/(diopter power). A 500D is 1000/(+2) and a 250D is 1000/(+4). This number, in millimeters, is the farthest focus distance in air. Inon makes a 330 and a 165. Those are, not surprisingly, +3 and +6 respectively. :-)

Use a single element diopter for wide angle lenses. I avoid Tiffen myself.

inon, never thought of them.

now, there is a shot I've been trying to get for quite awhile and between water conditions and soft outsides of the image i have not been satisfied with my results. i'm trying to shoot a flat piece of rock about 40cmx 40cm. on land i'd use a 60 or 55 but under water in Ireland the vis is never good enough, so would the 10-17 and the right dome (which one?) or the 12-24 with a +3 work better for this shot.

ta