Tokina 10-17 in a subal d200

Hey Forum

I have a nikon D200 in a Subal ND20 with an FEP2 Dome port.

I want to use a Tokina 10-17mm with zoom gear and was wondering if I can get away without an extension ring for the port.

Steve Warren at Ocean Optics tells me I don't need one but will this degrade image quality or alter the close focus distance.

Also will a lack of extension ring affect split level shots.

Is anyone out there using this setup and what are your thoughts?

Your help would be appreciated.

Nige Wade

Hey Nige

Well Steve Warren knows his onions so I'd go with his advice. You can always get a ring if you're not happy with the results - they aren't cheap so its worth trying without one first. Can you give it a go in a pool?

I'm using a 20mm extension with the FE2 and a D300 and the 10-17. The advice I got from Seaoptics was to try that (I already had it for the 18-70 Nikkor); although Seaoptics said they knew people were using the 10-17 successfully with the DP-FE2 without an extension or with the 15 or 20mm.

Terrific lens!

Greetings from the other side of the pond, Nige.

Ryan at Reef Photo recommended I use the 15mm extension with my new 10-17. (I'm also shooting the D200 in the ND20 housing with the FE2 dome here).

My first results were very good (considering the operator behind the housing!).

I've not tried it without the extension. so I can't speak to that particular scenario.

Incidentally, over/under shots in my pool tests were great with this lens, too.

Enjoy,

Mark

Thanks for the replies Mark, Tim & Jeff.

A bit worried at the prospect of vignetting at 10mm, has anyone else found this a problem?

Does the lack of extension cause any other issues? (Jeez did I just say that)

Nige

Timely...

I just received the Tokina lens as an early (OK, very early) Chistmasukah gift - and I called the guys at Backscatter to see what I'll need with my Subal housing and FE2 dome. "Definitely" according to them, I will need an extension ring, I believe they pulled an 18 mm one for me (didn't even know that existed, but hey, that's nothing new).

Hoping to take my new booty out on the oil rigs next weekend, and I cannot wait. Enjoy your new gear!!

I use small extension ring (15mm? - it might be 18mm as Alison says). It was just the smallest one that Steve had!

I know that when this lens came out, Ryan tested them all and found the 20mm was best:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18961&

If the dome is too close it will actually reduce the coverage of the lens a bit - so you want something.

The other thing to watch is that because the Canon cameras have smaller sensors than the Nikon's the coverage of the 10-17mm is slightly reduced on a Canon compared with a Nikon. David Hass found that this meant that the dome extension he was using with his Canon in Iklelite actually caused cut-off with a Nikon.

Alex

I know that when this lens came out, Ryan tested them all and found the 20mm was best:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18961&

http://www.subal.com/en/portselection/port...;markennummer=4

One advantage of using extension for over-unders is that the further away the dome the easier is to have both sides in focus (the virtual image of the water part is further away) and the easier is to keep the waterline.

Thanks Guys

Looks like an extension ring of around 18mm is the way to go, Not one post stating any advantage without one, says it all.

Having said that I trust Steve Warren's judgement and expertese and will have a go at a pool session later this week (I'll post the results.)

Nige

Thanks Guys

 

Looks like an extension ring of around 18mm is the way to go, Not one post stating any advantage without one, says it all.

 

Having said that I trust Steve Warren's judgement and expertese and will have a go at a pool session later this week (I'll post the results.)

 

Nige

Hi award-winning photographer Nige! As a rough guide you want the lens not to protrude into the dome space but have the front glass close back parallel with the backplate of the port. I haven't tried the 10-17 in my old Subal/S2 set-up but that's how it looks in the SandS housing (with a shallow extension ring) and my pictures are 'king awesome!!! Well, the sharpness is, anyway! Anyone want to buy a little used 10.5 Nikkor?

Hi award-winning photographer Nige! As a rough guide you want the lens not to protrude into the dome space but have the front glass close back parallel with the backplate of the port. I haven't tried the 10-17 in my old Subal/S2 set-up but that's how it looks in the SandS housing (with a shallow extension ring) and my pictures are 'king awesome!!! Well, the sharpness is, anyway! Anyone want to buy a little used 10.5 Nikkor?

Hey JB,

Thats some good advice. Should have rang you first

Probably be another 10.5 on the S/H market by the end of the week.

Nige

Not so fast, Nige! Spend even more money (Go on, you know you want to) and get a 1.4TC and use that with your 10.5mm. A whole new world of interesting images opportunities awaits....

Not so fast, Nige! Spend even more money (Go on, you know you want to) and get a 1.4TC and use that with your 10.5mm. A whole new world of interesting images opportunities awaits....

You know me better than my wife Tim, I was thinking of doing just that.!!!

I just found this post from Don Silcock on the thread link Alex posted.....

Quote: I used the 10-17 on a recent trip to the Banda Sea with my Subal D20 & D200. I started off with the FE dome and a 10mm extension but then removed the EXR as the results seemed soft in the corners compared to the 10.5

I had no problems with the zoom without the EXR

I had read here on WP that somebody was using a short EXR so I thought I would start off with the 10mm but it did not seem as sharp as the 10.5 so I tried it without and it seemed better

This was posted in May '07 If you're still out there Don do you still have the same opinion?

Nige

Hello Nige,

We are in the same boat, although I allready ordered myself a 18 mm subal extension ring. Came along this tread from some time ago:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...5&hl=tokina

Udo had some nice results without an extension, If I read it before I would have tried my recent bought tokina without an extension first.

off topic:

Funny thing is I tested the tokina vs the nikon 10.5 topside on a decent tripod, my thoughts are that the tokina at 10mm isnt as wide as the nikon 10.5 (its just a little, but u would think it would be the other way around). I also found out I needed to dial in an exposure correction of about -0.66 to get the same exposure as the nikon (shutter / apperture combination after the exposure correction of -0.66 were the same as the nikon without exposure compensation).

okey, good luck,

greetzz Robin

Interesting that, Robin. I find I have to underexpose a bit too with the 10-17 topside (not that I use it that often out of the water) on my D300. Underwater it doesn't seem a problem.

Hey Tim,

havent used this lens below the waves yet, gonna try it next week in the Red Sea.

Even had to dial in an exposure comp of -1 with the tokina in order to get the same shutter / apperture combination of the Nikon.

for those interested:

nikon: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=107&sort=0

tokina: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=108&sort=0

U can also see the small difference in color and width

All shot with a D300

greetzz Robin

With all the positives about the Tokina 10-17m f/3.5-4.5 it is probably not surprising that there hasn't been more interest in the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye lens. When comparing the two lenses the obvious advantage the Tokina has is that it is more versatile with its zoom range. The Tokina may also be about $50-90 cheaper. But for all the other following reasons the Sigma is my choice:

>Simpler - No port extensions, no zoom gear . no diopters

>Image quality - comparing the f2.8 to the Tokina's 3.5 - 4.5 you would expect better image quality from the Sigma. I think they are both excellent in image quality but in terms of underwater use I found the corners definitely sharper with the Sigma ( Now I have to admit that when I used the Tokina I did not have an extension ring but looking at other uncropped images from the Tokina it seems to be true generally ).

{I also think that it is generally agreed that Nikon 10.5mm fisheye does rather poorly with corner sharpness - an uw pro who uses the Nikon 10.5mm admitted to me that his images with this lens always need a bit of cropping.}

>Brighter viewfinder image

>Faster and more accurate autofocus. ( I can't proove this one but it certainly seemed that way for me )

>Even closer focusing

>Great for split shots. This is particularly true for the Canon version I think as the 167 degree view is a bit less fishy than the 180 degree Nikon mount.

Anyway just a thought. I have been very happy with mine

Hello Andre,

Dont wanna be a pixel peeper, however, in therms of corner sharpness; I tested the tokina 10-17 at 10 vs the nikon 10.5 topside, brick wall. At F8-F11 there isnt much difference between the two, however, a little more wide open the Nikon smokes the Tokina in the corners, the Nikon is alot sharper.

100% corner of the nikon: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=105&sort=0

100% corner of the tokina: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=106&sort=0

there is a little difference in perspective between the two, as reported before, crop isnt an exact match because of that.

both have the same amount of in-camera sharpening (no auto sharpening), taken only minutes apart, from a decent tripod.

just my thought.

greetzz Robin

Hello Andre,

 

Dont wanna be a pixel peeper, however, in therms of corner sharpness; I tested the tokina 10-17 at 10 vs the nikon 10.5 topside, brick wall. At F8-F11 there isnt much difference between the two, however, a little more wide open the Nikon smokes the Tokina in the corners, the Nikon is alot sharper.

 

100% corner of the nikon: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=105&sort=0

100% corner of the tokina: http://www.gaviiformes.nl/public_html/medi...=106&sort=0

 

there is a little difference in perspective between the two, as reported before, crop isnt an exact match because of that.

 

both have the same amount of in-camera sharpening (no auto sharpening), taken only minutes apart, from a decent tripod.

 

just my thought.

 

greetzz Robin.

I totally believe everything that you say about the Tokina 10-17 and the Nikon 10.5. My pitch was for the Sigma 10mm fisheye!

It seems logical that if you have corner softness on land the problems can only be worse underwater behind a dome port. So starting off with a lens that has better corner sharpness on land at least gives you a chance underwater

Well I managed a dive at an inland divesite today.

Took the Tokina 10-17 set at 10mm (the zoom gear was on my doorstep when I got back home) in the Subal behind the DPFE2 with no extesion ring.

So I thought I'd share my first impressions with all.

No serious vignetting but soft in the corners.

The one thing I did notice was that I had to pull my strobes back alot further than with the 10.5 FE.

I think that the lens pushed further into the domeport receives less cover from the port shade.

So in conclusion I've parted with more "wonga" and asked Steve to post me an 18mm extension ring on sale or return.

Nige