Tokina 14-24 FX fisheye announced

I'm not sure which is worse--taking the performance hit optically with a TC or just taking the resolution hit by cropping.

That's a no-brainer ... a TC doesn't damage IQ anywhere near as much as throwing away 1/2 your pixels.

I completely disagree on that one.

I disagree that the pixels you get are less sharp.....I simply don't see a quality loss with my setup. I've posted a number of pics that show this setup to be pretty sharp. I've also not heard this criticism when folks like Alex posted CFWA pics using the TC and FE on DX before. My edges seem to be similar to what they were on DX, and still better than my rectilinear options.

Well just look at the newspaper comparison you posted at 10mm and 14mm equivelent in the center. To my eye the lens without the TC is sharp at all apertures. With it it looks pretty crumby until you get to F8 which is pretty small for a minimum aperture. You stated yourself that you were planning to use it at F8.

I always thought that Alex's CFWA was making things waaay too complicated. Why not use the Sigma 15mm FE instead? This lens would focus just as close to the focal plane with the same magnification for the same reproduction ratio without the looses associated with more glass. The main justification was that Nikon 16mm doesn't get that close so it won't work that way. I really like the technique though and he produced some great shots. Thats not an endorsement of the optics but of the photographer instead.

6MP really is a limiting factor for anything over 8x10 enlargements which I routinely do. 6MP is OK for web, but not much else for my purposes.

Well ok maybe but 6 MP is pleanty for many purposes not just the web, magazine shots (just ask Alex), photo books etc. The D700 brings much more to the table than just resolution and you still get those benifits.

Well just look at the newspaper comparison you posted at 10mm and 14mm equivelent in the center. To my eye the lens without the TC is sharp at all apertures. With it it looks pretty crumby until you get to F8 which is pretty small for a minimum aperture. You stated yourself that you were planning to use it at F8.

You've got funny standards ... the 70-200mm VR is "perfect", yet you find fault with the corners here ...

I just can't see how - given real underwater conditions i.e. shooting hand-held in the open ocean through a port and water - one would see any difference between 'with' and 'without TC'.

I did not post the newsprint images, Matt Segal did.

Underwater, behind a dome (which my images are) I don't see a significant difference at the edges between 10-17 with and without TC or the 16 with and without TC. I'm sure under rigid testing differences can be found, just not a n issue in practice, you only have to crop any image you own to remove half the pixels to see a clear difference in quality, even on your screen. Try it if you question that logic.

I have yet to see tack sharp edges with any wideangle lens, fisheye or rectilinear, at 5.6 or below, so f8 or above is my usual aperture of choice for all WA with any lens / port combination I presently own.

I prefer to increase ISO on my D700 if needed to opening the aperture for any wide angle / port combination in my possession.

Bottom line, at f8 or above which is the minimum aperture I use - there is no significant image quality loss visible to my eyes with the TC, and simply no comparison to cropping away half my pixels.

I've posted these images before, that show the 10-17 with TC at 10mm uncropped and a corner cropped image. I think the edges are sharp,even the fin in the first image looks quite good to me, and the parasites on this whaleshark are clearly visible. I'm happy with the sharpness and image quality.

Thank you, thank you... THANK YOU!

This thread made my day. I've moved to FF (5Dmk2) and was wondering what lens to use for WA. The 1.4x TC with the 10-17mm is a great idea!

Now, just what port body length do i use with my 8" dome? (I still use Ikelite) I calculated the length of the TC+10-17 to be 3.56 inches. And checking the ikelite site (via google cache as Ikelite's site seems to be down)... i have 2 options?

#5510.16 For lens up to 3.5" with Dome

#5510.22 For lens up to 4" with Dome

Im guessing the #5510.16 would be correct as its only 0.06" off?

Can anybody advise me please? Thanks!