Tokina 10-17 with 1.4TC on FX

I could be wrong but I have assumed that for Nikon (1.5 DX crop), if I were to put a 1.5 TC on any DX lens, then that lens would then behave on FX in an identical fashion to the lens without TC on DX. FOV, focusing distances etc would be identical. Only difference is loss of 1 stop on maximum aperture. With a 1.4 TC, FOV is slightly wider, hence the vignetting.

I calculate my setup as a 14 (1.4*10) to 23.8 (1.4*17) fisheye perspective lens. The normal FOV of the Tokina is 180 - 100 degrees so this 1.4 setup should be close, very slightly wider maybe. (I calculate 107 degrees at the 17mm end, 1.5/1.4*100) For comparison, the Nikon 14-24 FOV is 114 - 84 degrees. I would guess that the Tokina and 1.4TC at about 16mm (on the dial, 22.4mm actual) has about the same FOV as the widest presently available FX rectilinear zoom, which is the Nikon 14-24.

I would like to add a couple of new observations with regard to port extensions and vignetting at the 10mm setting.

On my recent trip I used the FE2 Subal Domeport and 30mm extension and the following vignetting / corner obstruction resulted. It should be pointed out that with this setup the Tokina and 1.4TC combination protrudes just beyond the port opening. My initial thought was that the lines of vignetting down the sides (right more than left) are 'in-camera' the soft vignetting at the top is due to the Tokina lens shade which is longer on top and bottom than on the sides, and the corner vignetting is due to the dome port shade.

I was surprised to find that the corner vignetting got better when I moved the lens closer to the dome (10mm extension), thinking it was the dome port shade, but did not get better when I moved the lens back(20mm extension), even with the dome shade removed.

Any comments, or thoughts on the best extension to use would be appreciated.

I started to use the tokina for VeryCFWA so I found a very small dome. Problem was that the dome was so close to the lens that I could only zoom out to 15mm. So I took a no return solution and filed away most of the lens shades (without scratching the lens! a miracle for my clumsiness). It now works perfectly (dome is really really close to the lens) without any focusing problems and FOV could be (not sure at all) slightly reduced but I should check as I have been using for regular FE pics without noticing.

I started to use the tokina for VeryCFWA so I found a very small dome. Problem was that the dome was so close to the lens that I could only zoom out to 15mm. So I took a no return solution and filed away most of the lens shades (without scratching the lens! a miracle for my clumsiness). It now works perfectly (dome is really really close to the lens) without any focusing problems and FOV could be (not sure at all) slightly reduced but I should check as I have been using for regular FE pics without noticing.

I probably will trim down the shades as well; not sure if I'll try to cut or file them. I had not thought of using a file.

I started to use the tokina for VeryCFWA so I found a very small dome. Problem was that the dome was so close to the lens that I could only zoom out to 15mm. So I took a no return solution and filed away most of the lens shades (without scratching the lens! a miracle for my clumsiness). It now works perfectly (dome is really really close to the lens) without any focusing problems and FOV could be (not sure at all) slightly reduced but I should check as I have been using for regular FE pics without noticing.

The reduction of angle of coverage would depend on the curvature of the dome. A small hemisphere dome would not reduce coverage, but a wide lens close to the front of a large hemisphere dome (or small section of one) would. As you can easily imagine, the larger hemisphere dome would act more like a flat port (reducing view accordingly) if the lens was close to it.

Alex

The reduction of angle of coverage would depend on the curvature of the dome. A small hemisphere dome would not reduce coverage, but a wide lens close to the front of a large hemisphere dome (or small section of one) would. As you can easily imagine, the larger hemisphere dome would act more like a flat port (reducing view accordingly) if the lens was close to it.

 

Alex

One of the nice things about using this lens, is of course the more compact rig with shorter extension etc than the larger rectilinears. With a FE, the smaller domes should work as well as the larger domes, correct?

Jeff

The mother of WA zooms is still the Sigma 12-24 on FF at 122° at 12mm. Just forget about corners with this lens underwater without a 15" domeport . Although I'm contemplating cutting up a Tiffen 138 +2 to fit inside the lens petals and see what I can get out of it. It'll be 110° with a +2 but could be worthwhile. I personally dislike the FE distortion on many shots. It works for central subject shots but to me rectilinear is much more appealing, even at the expense of corner sharpness. Which is why we blow $$$ on 16-24mp cameras so we can crop

Jeff

The mother of WA zooms is still the Sigma 12-24 on FF at 122° at 12mm. Just forget about corners with this lens underwater without a 15" domeport . Although I'm contemplating cutting up a Tiffen 138 +2 to fit inside the lens petals and see what I can get out of it. It'll be 110° with a +2 but could be worthwhile. I personally dislike the FE distortion on many shots. It works for central subject shots but to me rectilinear is much more appealing, even at the expense of corner sharpness. Which is why we blow $$$ on 16-24mp cameras so we can crop

Yeah, I think everyone has their preference in this regard. I think what folks find so attractive about the 10-17 (and have therefore sold the 10.5 Nikon) is the 17mm end which is very wide, but with little noticeable fisheye effect particularly when not very close to the subject.

This lens is also popular because it's easy to use from a focusing perspective, for a number of reasons. The close focus ability is unequaled, field curvature matches domeports better than rectilinears, and more depth of field.

I hear men speak with a little forked tongue when it comes to the high MP cropping thing; on the one hand it's not OK to crop, but then it's OK if the corners are not so good if I've got the MP....hmmmm. Anyway each to his own, my two wides at the moment are the 10-17 with TC and 17-35. For an in your face action lens. I think the fisheye zoom is hard to beat, few lenses have generated the affection that folks have for the 10-17, and it's one of the commonly expressed reasons why people don't want to change from DX to FX.

With a FE, the smaller domes should work as well as the larger domes, correct?

Larger domes should give better corner sharpness. Also because their virtual image is further from the camera they can help close focusing (although make it harder to light) particularly with the Nikon 16mm.

I think that the rectilinear versus fisheye is totally a personal taste thing. Depending on what you shoot and how you shoot. Some prefer one, some the other.

Alex

p.s. It is not OK to crop in the Wetpixel Int. Photo Competition Traditional Categories!

p.s. It is not OK to crop in the Wetpixel Int. Photo Competition Traditional Categories!

Oh crap...I mean crop!

I personally think they should ban the goof balls for a minimum of 3 years for being that stupid as to submit rule breakers. I guess selective reading is rampant in photography.

I totally agree lenses and their looks are subjective.

Hi Guy,

For what its worth, I was at the PMA show in Las Vegas last week. And went to the Tokina booth to specifically suggest that with there now being at least three makers of full frame D-SLR's they should consider making a version of the 10-17mm for the full-frame market. The people told me that such a lens had already been proposed and was under consideration.

Fred

Excellent, Fred.

We should follow your lead and should all write/speak to Tokina and show them that there is a real interest. Particularly if this is the crucial decision-making time.

Alex

Alex

 

p.s. It is not OK to crop in the Wetpixel Int. Photo Competition Traditional Categories!

This one I find quite odd since one of the most traditional things to do is crop. I wonder if the person who came up with this one has ever tried printing an a full 8x10 from a 35mm negative in the traditional darkroom?

Furthermore there is a certain arbitrariness of the 2:3 aspect ratio - many pix are better either more square or more oblong.

One of the cool things about digital is that one has available a near infinitesimal range of aspect ratios for their images. Though one would not want to over do it e.g., a panorama 100 pixels high and 4000 pixels long!

Sure Tom I agree that cropping is obviously much easier with digital and can be awesome when used properly. However, when a competition rules state no cropping and people insist on submitting entries contravening the rules in the hope of getting away with it. Well, I think they deserve to be banned. It's simple.

I would also be concerned about the corner CA - an area where the Tokina is already a bit naughty and I would only expect it to get worse working through a TC. I would think that typical reef wide angle shots, where the corners might contain contrasty fine detail (silhouetted small fish, edges of seafans etc) that the purple fringing could be an issue.

 

Alex

Alex,

In the cases where you saw this problem, did you try CA correction in post?

The Tokina 10-17mm is well known for purple fringing - which is why is regularly gets slated in land photography reviews, e.g.

"However, the Tokina lens clearly has some downsides. The primary weaknesses are chromatic aberrations (color shadows at the borders) and, more so, purple fringing (color blooming). Lateral CAs can be reduced easily via imaging tools but this is more difficult with PF."

But as I have said since my initial reviews of this lens - this is not such a problem with UW subject matter:

"Testing the lens on land I found that the zoom was more prone [than Nikon 10.5mm] to chromatic aberrations and particularly purple fringing on high contrast details in the corners of the frame. Sharpness was similar. Underwater, behind a dome port, the fringing issue is much less. At typical apertures (not wide open) under normal shooting conditions I have found the Tokina photos to be all but indistinguishable from my Nikon 10.5mm for sharpness, colour saturation and fringing. That said, pool tests published by Steve Frink and Mike Mesgleski on Wetpixel.com have shown more fringing from the Tokina, although they note that pool test shots are not truly representative of how fisheyes are used in the ocean."

Jeff, here is an example from our Socorro trip, of a corner frame crop (screen grabbed from Lightroom) with the PF as shot (uncorrected) and then corrected (Blue/Yellow +75):

My concern is that the teleconverter is likely to amplify the PF with Tokina. But this is just a concern - I have not tested it. And it would be good to see it wasn't.

Alex

Thanks, helps to know what to look for as well. I'll look at my images more closely.

Hi Guy,

 

For what its worth, I was at the PMA show in Las Vegas last week. And went to the Tokina booth to specifically suggest that with there now being at least three makers of full frame D-SLR's they should consider making a version of the 10-17mm for the full-frame market. The people told me that such a lens had already been proposed and was under consideration.

 

Fred

That would be nice. It should theoretically be quite simple for Tokina to do this with the previous Pentax 17-28 design (mentioned in Alex's review of the 10-17) just as they did with Pentax's 10-17.

I see no reason to use my 16mm again for diving, except maybe low light siuations.

I think the Tokina is one of those lenses that when you have it on for something like that chance whaleshark encounter, you're pretty happy you did.

Could I trouble you to expand a little on why you prefer the 10-17mm to your Nikon 16mm?

Is it only because of the zoom range, or do you actually find the image quality at the wide end to be better than the 16mm, even though you have to add a TC to use the 10-17 on your FF Nikon D700?

Also, did you find a way to be able to use the zoom control in your housing, even with the TC between the lens and camera body?

Thanks.

Could I trouble you to expand a little on why you prefer the 10-17mm to your Nikon 16mm?

Is it only because of the zoom range, or do you actually find the image quality at the wide end to be better than the 16mm, even though you have to add a TC to use the 10-17 on your FF Nikon D700?

Also, did you find a way to be able to use the zoom control in your housing, even with the TC between the lens and camera body?

Thanks.

The reasons I like this option with the TC, are the same reasons I like the 10-17 and stopped using my 10.5 on DX.

The reason is flexibility and versatility. Image quality is not the reason, as I have always been pleased with the image quality of the 16mm and it's unlikely that the 10-17 with TC would have better image quality.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that image quality did not appear to suffer noticeably when I added the TC.

The ability to zoom this lens to the 17 end(24mm on FX with the TC) makes it much more versatile than a fixed fisheye, ranging from 180 degree fisheye to superwide, almost rectilinear behaviour, without the corner issues of a wide rectilinear.

This flexibility is invaluable I think in the types of situations I have shown.

The other desirable characteristic of this lens is it's close focus ability, which does not change with the TC.

I will still use my 16mm in the pool, probably with a TC as well, which is a more controlled 'studio' like environment.

The zoom control works fine with my Subal, the gear was sent to me by Ryan at Reef photo, I think its for a Canon 10-22 or something.

I spoke to UK Tokina rep last week. He said Tokina Japan are well aware of a demand - and also note that the number of full frame DSLR shooters is increasing all the time. But they won't tell him whether they are working on one - or they have decided not to.

Alex