I prefer fisheye with TC to wide rectilinear on FX

Hi Guys,

How did you censor that one Jeff? Did you cut/copy/paste in a whole piece of fabric? If so good job!

I used the 17-40L w/ no diopter, the Seacam Superdome and PVL35

Cheers

James

Hi Guys,

 

How did you censor that one Jeff? Did you cut/copy/paste in a whole piece of fabric? If so good job!

 

I used the 17-40L w/ no diopter, the Seacam Superdome and PVL35

 

Cheers

James

If you look bottom right you can see the white edge where I quickly duplicated the piece of fabric and rotated it 90 degrees.

I was just asking about the dome, as I was curious to see if the larger domes are better in this regard than my Subal FE2. It does not appear that they are.

I suspect that that this is a problem that is exacerbated by the dome and is probably not lens dependent but will occur with any wide rectilinear. As I definitely see this problem far more behind a dome, in fact with the 17-35 I cannot detect any obvious pincushion distortion at 17mm in similar images topside. Just reinforces my impression that fisheyes with their curved plane of focus are a better match for the simple optics of a dome port.

I think if Tokina ever come out with their version of the Pentax 17-28 fisheye zoom, I think it will be as popular on FF as the 10-17 is on DX.

I seriously think we should petition Tokina on the subject, stress the point that a sizable portion of the 10-17mm is sold for underwater usage. Anybody out there who knows how to set up those online petition, we could get the community behind this, who knows maybe they are like us and listen to their customers , that is the one lens that would tip the balance for a lot of peoples