Have Tok 10-17mm, should I get the Nikon 10.5

Ok I have a D300 and the Tok 10-17mm which I quite like. Trouble is a buddy highlighted a flaw with the excellent 10-17mm - its not great in temperate regions in low viz where you need to open her up. It suffers from purple fringing. I have the Sigma 15mm which is a great lens but not as wide as the Nikon 10.5mm. What do you folks use in temperate regions?

Also for macro I have the Nikon 60mm D, where should I go next? The Nikon 85mm or 105mm?

cheers

Darragh

I don´t it is worth buying the 10.5 if you already own the tokina. If you don´t want to open it so much, try using a higher ISO (D300 is good up to ISO 800 at least, and that is a lot of light).

A for macro, I would go the 105VR route.

Good luck!

Ok I have a D300 and the Tok 10-17mm which I quite like. Trouble is a buddy highlighted a flaw with the excellent 10-17mm - its not great in temperate regions in low viz where you need to open her up. It suffers from purple fringing. I have the Sigma 15mm which is a great lens but not as wide as the Nikon 10.5mm. What do you folks use in temperate regions?

Also for macro I have the Nikon 60mm D, where should I go next? The Nikon 85mm or 105mm?

 

cheers

 

Darragh

The 10.5 would be a waste of money, I shoot that lens and in the right circumstances there is considerable purple fringing. Fringing is more an issue with camera sensors while using ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lenses than the lenses themselves. The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not enough to justify. Plus shooting fisheyes wide open will give you poorer results. The Nikon fisheye is amazingly sharp though, I have owned a few different fisheyes over the years and is is the sharpest. I think if you have a 60, and buy one of the other macros, you will mostly shoot the 60. They all give identical magnification so you won't be getting more magnified images, you will just have a greater working distance. Only beneficial for shyer subjects.......more water to shoot through also so your images will but lower in contrast with slightly less detail.

The 10.5 would be a waste of money, I shoot that lens and in the right circumstances there is considerable purple fringing. Fringing is more an issue with camera sensors while using ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lenses than the lenses themselves. The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not enough to justify. Plus shooting fisheyes wide open will give you poorer results. The Nikon fisheye is amazingly sharp though, I have owned a few different fisheyes over the years and is is the sharpest. I think if you have a 60, and buy one of the other macros, you will mostly shoot the 60. They all give identical magnification so you won't be getting more magnified images, you will just have a greater working distance. Only beneficial for shyer subjects.......more water to shoot through also so your images will but lower in contrast with slightly less detail.

For some reason this page is adding the word"(weitwinkel)" into my reply, I have no idea why, tried removing it and it appeared again. It is not part of my original reply.

I second Diverdave opinion. Dont buy the 10.5mm if you already have the Tokina 10-17mm. Spend the money on the 105vr if you already have the 60mm.

Regards Mark

Dave... weitwinkle.. its an old joke

Dave... weitwinkle.. its an old joke

I don't get it......and I'm old.

I don't get it......and I'm old.

Deutsch for wide angle. I'm older than dirt. Just go to the south on the big island and there I am older than dirt.

Bob

Deutsch for wide angle. I'm older than dirt. Just go to the south on the big island and there I am older than dirt.

Bob

I'm going to go out on a limb here Bob......did you happen to hear that phrase from Lisa Choquette of DMC Charters? She used to say that a lot when they took the Lio Kai down south.

I'm going to go out on a limb here Bob......did you happen to hear that phrase from Lisa Choquette of DMC Charters? She used to say that a lot when they took the Lio Kai down south.

Hi,

No, My wife and I were on your lovely island last June. I think I picked up that reference from Andrew Doughty's "Big Island Revealed" guide book. I am older than a lot of your island's surface. Some of it is still smoking!

Soft landings,

Bob

I originally bought the 10.5. Good lens, probably better than the 10-17.

However since I bought the 10-17 I have never used the 10.5. The zoom is much more valuable than the mild increase in IQ.

I have shot the 10-17 in Alaska with good results. Fairly temperate waters.

Ok it's becoming painful sitting on the fence here - I will come out of the closet, I _hate_ the 10-17 and prefer the 10.5 prime, and I have both.

While I realize this is sacrilege of the first order it is true.

FWIW I find the 17 end of the 10-17 far too seductive - it is 'easy' to 'zoom' in rather than get closer.

Composition is easier with the 10-17 somewhat zoomed.

If the visibility is not crystal clear then the end result is somewhat soft and to me disappointing.

No doubt at all the 10.5 is 'harder' to shoot - bloody fins are always in the frame for a start - but if you can 'nail' the shot then the results are stunning and for me I prefer less 'keepers' of a higher quality.

Paul C

(putting on the protective armour and taking cover)

Thanks for all advice. I think I'll save my money on the 10.5 and may invest in the 105VR in the near future.

Darragh

I have shot Grey Nurse Sharks here in low vis conditons with the Tokina 10-17mm and I am very happy with the results. I personally think the 10.5mm is a fraction wider than the Tokina when its at 10mm which means strobe placement is more of an issue.

Can you provide some examples of what your shooting to get an idea of your problems with the Tokina?

Regards Mark

I wish I'd sold you my 10.5 Paul (PRC). I gave it away when I traded it in with that other lens (12-24) I never used after I got the Tokina 10-17. I admit its a horrible lens to use in air but behind the optically corrected glass dome I got for a Sea & Sea housing, the results are remarkable and it is the sole reason I haven't abandoned DX for the expensive FX outfit I got myself. Every trip I am torn between D200 and D700, can you believe it? Come to LIDS where you will see some pictures 10 feet x 10 feet taken with it.

I wish I'd sold you my 10.5 Paul (PRC). I gave it away when I traded it in with that other lens (12-24) I never used after I got the Tokina 10-17. I admit its a horrible lens to use in air but behind the optically corrected glass dome I got for a Sea & Sea housing, the results are remarkable and it is the sole reason I haven't abandoned DX for the expensive FX outfit I got myself. Every trip I am torn between D200 and D700, can you believe it? Come to LIDS where you will see some pictures 10 feet x 10 feet taken with it.

Hi John,

I actually have a very similar set up - D300 in S&S with optical glass dome port. Ok so a solution to the problem is to increase the ISO, question is how high do you go before there is unexceptable drop in image quality on the D300?