Nikon 10,5 vs Tokina 10 17 and teleconverter 1,4

Hello

I did not get many answer to my previous question , with the exception of deep6 ..

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...hl=tokina+10+17

But I'm still looking for an answer.

I read again the article from March 2007 from dr Alex Mustard in UWP magazine but if the benefit of using the teleconverter on a 10,5 mm was clear the benefit to use it with the Tokina 10 17 is not so obvious , as you can get without any teleconverter a 14 mm lense only if you zoom ,and as the minimal distance of focus will remain the same ..

And as Mark Gray, now I wonder if the Nikon 10,5 mm is not a better wide angle lens that the Tokina , also for W.A.M. ???

Hope to get some answer ..at this is a really important question for me .

Thank

Dominique

Bonjour Dominique, I would stick to the Tokina for using with the 1.4x converter, the zoom and its added flexibillity far outweight the 10.5mm in this area.

This being said if you have the 10.5mm already, I'd say use it, the Tokina has advantage, but not to the point of buying a one on top of a 10.5mm that you would own already.

I had both and got rid of the Nikon 10.5mm, there are issue discussed on some other thread about the exposure difference, I did not find anything that obvious in my case, but most important is that my lens does give me the proper exposure when I assign it an aperture, whatever that aperture might be.

On the subject of TC with fisheye, I see it that way:

These lenses have extremely close focusing capabillity and a extremely wide field of view, from the same working distance the 1.4x TC will make whatever you see bigger but reduce the field of view in consequence, since you already have so much Field Of View available already, losing some won't hurt that much, making a subject appear bigger from the same working distance on the other hand can be a huge benefit.

One way I describe it is:

using a macro lens will give you a portrait of your subject with the emphasis on itself only, there is but very few hints of its surrounding environment.

Using a fisheye or ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lens (and for god sake why does it always write weit winkel next to it all the time, can someone explain that to me ) give you the environment your subject is evolving in, but you often need a sizable subject in the foreground to tell the story (in most case a grouper, diver, sponge, etc) basically I consider ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lens including fisheye to be story telling lens with which you show the people what you are shooting and where its located.

Using a fisheye with the TC, gives you a ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lens with macro capabillity, you can really get close and personnal with all but the smallest of organisms and still show them in their surrounding. so its macro with a story attached to it.

Et voila, c'est ma façon de voir les choses

No contest! I never used my 10.5 after I bought the 10-17. I just wish there was the equivalent for FX - or is there?

Me too. I sold my 10.5 once I tried the 10-17. Since the 10-17 is THE most useful u/w lens ever made, the 10.5 is redundant for underwater photographers.

Didn't Pentax have a FF fisheye zoom from which Tokina could rehash a digital version?

Pentax did indeed have a 16-35mm full framed fisheye and I did sell a few while I was working in a camera store at the time, I would say that was a good 10 years ago, my understanding is that Pentax and Tokina are happy bed fellows (sort of like Nikon / Sony), I even heard rumour that the Tokina 10-17mm was manufactured by Pentax for Tokina, this i'm a little sceptical about, the opposite IMO would be less surprising.

In regarding what lens between the Nikon 10.5 FE and the Tokina 10-17mm FE is the best. I am still playing with the 10.5mm FE to see if it is more suited to my style of shooting. So far with my limited use I would say I still prefer the Tokina, especially at 10mm. But I will continue to play around with both lenses and hopefully in better conditions and different styles.

It would be very interesting to see a FX version of the Tokina (and used with a FX camera) and see how it compares with shooting the 10-17mm DX on a DX Camera.

Regards Mark

Just add a picture to illustrate what everone had said already ....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cadiver/4912584806/

The pink subject is about the size of a dime to a quarter (or about an inch or 2 cm) and my port was about 3~4 inches away perhaps from it & almost flush to the sandy bottom. This is as close as I normall able to get to w/ my flat port fitted w/ the 60mm. The Tokina 10-17 + Kenko 1.4TC made it feel like photo in macro but get a wider range of coverage.

Forgot to mention, I did crop about 10%, so it's actually even wider (at 17mm + 1.4) in the original pic.

Cheers!

Dom

I have both lenses and am still sitting on the fence as far as preferring one over the other, but I am leaning towards the Tokina.

I like the benefits of the Tokina zoom. Not sure about the close focusing capability as compared to the Nikon 10.5mm being any better, I will have to do some tests. Also, I got an impression that the post processing of the Tokina image felt "different" than with my usual line up of Nikon Lenses. I should mention that this is neither here or there, it was just an impression, neither good or bad.

One thing I hated about the Nikon 10.5mm was the need for Nikon Capture NX (and the added expense of Nikon Capture NX) to remove distortion from the image. I also didn't like the way Capture NX discarded a lot of image data when it de-fished the photograph. I like the lens a little more now since I discovered the new lens profile for the Nikon 10.5mm in Adobe Lightroom does a really good job of removing this distortion, thus negating the need for Capture NX in most cases.

For me, it's horses for courses yet, although the Tokina does seem to find its' way onto the camera more and more.

On the subject of TC with fisheye, I see it that way:

 

These lenses have extremely close focusing capabillity and a extremely wide field of view, from the same working distance the 1.4x TC will make whatever you see bigger but reduce the field of view in consequence, since you already have so much Field Of View available already, losing some won't hurt that much, making a subject appear bigger from the same working distance on the other hand can be a huge benefit.

 

One way I describe it is:

 

using a macro lens will give you a portrait of your subject with the emphasis on itself only, there is but very few hints of its surrounding environment.

 

Using a fisheye or ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lens (and for god sake why does it always write weit winkel next to it all the time, can someone explain that to me ) give you the environment your subject is evolving in, but you often need a sizable subject in the foreground to tell the story (in most case a grouper, diver, sponge, etc) basically I consider ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lens including fisheye to be story telling lens with which you show the people what you are shooting and where its located.

 

Using a fisheye with the TC, gives you a ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lens with macro capabillity, you can really get close and personnal with all but the smallest of organisms and still show them in their surrounding. so its macro with a story attached to it.

 

Et voila, c'est ma façon de voir les choses

So , to said shortly wiz ( and if I well understand ) and as said deep6 in my first post to add a teleconverter to the ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lense increase magnification .

Well , may be ..with or whitout teleconverter and with the help of minidome we can already with the Tokina come very close to the subject we want to picture ..So..

To be sure I'll need to make two dives , with and without the Kenko 1,4 find the same subject at the same place take the picture and compare ..It's not easy to realise , but not impossible ..

I can also try in my bathtube or in the swimming pool..:)

I thank all of the people who have answer to my questions , and I'm happy to ear that you prefer Tokina 10-17 lense to 10,5 Nikon .

ps : it's strange "weitwinkel" is automatically add when I wrote ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lense ..

I'm obviously in a minority here, and I can't compete with Jean's technical expertise, but I still use my Nikon 10.5mm far more than my Tokina 10-17mm.

The teleconverter changes the optical distortion from the 10.5mm lens in ways that I find interesting - it isn't the same as a Tokina at the wide end, or, indeed, a Nikon 16mm on a DX sensor. I like the increased emphasis on the immediate foreground that it yields. This effect is greatest with close-ups, but, as you can see, persists even with larger subjects when they get close to the lens.

I have two reasons to avoid the Tokina 10-17mm: a philosophical one - I find that planning a dive to exploit a fixed focal length and the discipline that it imposes in seeking out and framing subjects improves my photography, and a practical one - I've had, and seen, Tokina lenses fall apart.

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Tokina 10-17mm, 17mm, Anthis FP120-7 micro-dome & 20mm extension ring (dome shade vignetting at extreme 10mm end)

Tiger shark

Nikon 10.5mm, Kenko 1.4x TC, Anthis FP120-7 micro-dome & 20mm extension ring (no vignetting)

The teleconverter has increased the impact of the larger animal's head, although both images were shot at a similar distance and not dissimilar angle.

Tim

... and a practical one - I've had, and seen, Tokina lenses fall apart.

I glue mine w/ 3M super glue & sort of permanently leave the zoom ring on to prevent further falling apart again

Have to admit I am with Tim and for pretty much the same reasons.

For me there is a tendency to use the 17mm end of the Tokina and then suffer the disappointment later when I know that a shorter camera to subject distance would create an oh so much better result.

Paul C

For me there is a tendency to use the 17mm end of the Tokina and then suffer the disappointment later...

And what a lovely Tokina you have, since it took my dolphin example above!!

Tim