10.5 FE vs 12-24

I use a D90 in an Aquatica housing. For lenses, I have a 12-24, 105 macro, 60 macro and a 50, all Nikon. I am considering adding a 10.5 fisheye to my bag.

Apart from the usual tropical stuff, I do a lot of my shooting in the Great Lakes, on the wrecks. I use the 12-24 always for this as the "subject" is large, and there is often a fair bit of sediment in the water.

I rented a 10.5 FE last weekend, but failed to realize that my 8" dome shade would encroach on the image (and I didn't have a small enough Allan key to remove it) so I really couldn't give it a proper assessment. From what I could see, it was really nice lens. The images were very sharp, and I could get ridiculously close to my subject, yet still frame a large area.

So my right brain would love to add this lens to my gear, but my left brain is arguing that dropping $700 (+new shade, + focus gear) is just dumb. I haven't asked Mrs. Stoo for her opinion, but I'm pretty sure that both sides of her brain are left...

I'd love to hear from those of you that have these lenses or similar.

Thoughts?

Don't do it! Buy the Tokina 10-17 instead. You won't regret it.

I personally would choose the Tokina 10-17mm over the Nikon 10.5 FE. I used the fisheye dome shade (part #18480) on my 8 inch Aquatica dome with both the Tokina 10-17mm and Nikkor 10.5mm FE without any issues.

The Tokina is far more flexible with its zoom than the fixed 10.5mm and still has near perfect optical qualities for underwater use. Another item which you can sell to Mrs Stoo is that the Tokina 10-17mm is also alot cheaper than the Nikkor 10.5mm.

Here are some images taken with my Aquatica AD90 and Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm behind the 8 inch dome:

i have the 10.5mm FE and the correct dome shade and i love the lens especially with a TC. however i am considering getting the Tokina lens so i would agree with AussieByron and go straight for the 10-17 and the correct dome shade... it just give a little more flexibility...

Does the Tokina have that "fisheye" look to it (seems to, looking at Aussiebyron's shots). The Tokina "sounds" so similar to the Nikon 12-24... Certainly the 10.5 shots looked a lot different than ones taken with my 12-24.

EDIT: I just looked up specs on the Tokina, and it does appear to have "the look". Can this replace my 12 - 24???

you won't regret the 10.5mm for wreck dives in available light...particularly if you run into "murky waters" a lot (fast 2.8 is wonderful)

off of NC, w/ Sea and Sea, NX Dome, Nikon D300....it is my go to lens....my 12-24 doesn't come close

there is almost no such thing as too close...focuses very close...and you still get the big vistas...I do autofocus...never a problem; and by "murky", I do mean "murky"...you can still get shots of wreckscapes in 15 ft milky viz....go close and its amazing how great everything looks

the only thing it won't do is faster "moving" marine life that won't get close (inside 4 ft)...but in less than pristine water, if they are not close, you are pretty much screwed anyway

At the 10mm end the Tokina will look like the 10.5; at the 17 end it will be closer to the 12 of your 12-24 and not as distorted as the 10 end. A much more versatile lens than the 10.5

Also focuses closer.

It is one stop slower, but not usually an issue in practice.

I had both, sold my 10.5

Another plus for the Tokina 10-17mm is that you can add the 1.4x TC and shoot it behind the Aquatica 100mm mini dome for CFWA. You can do this also with the 10.5 but limited and it doesnt focus as close as the Tokina 10-17mm.

Regards Mark

not to pick nits, but according to the Nikon site and the Tokina site, the minimum focus distance between the two lens is the same - 14 cm

www.NikonUSA.com/www.tokinalens.com

Underwater, I will admit to a bias for primes...no fences, cliffs, gravity, human barriers, etc so I'd I'd rather use the human zoom! ;-)

Hi bfdc,

I just found that when I used the 10.5mm that it didn't do as good a job as the Tokina 10-17mm FE.

Here is example of how close the Tokina can focus:

Patato Cod on the GBR. Resting its lip on my dome. Not a great shot but good example.

I personally think the 10.5mm Nikkor is a fraction wider and more distorted than the Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm and I like to have the option if need be to be able to zoom in. Sometimes the human zoom just does not work especially when you in a cage and there are big fish with big teeth which you kind of dont want to get too close too ;-).

I think the Tokina is much more versatile and thats why you see it as the number one wide angle lens for DX cameras. I have spoked to a few FF shooters that are looking at moving to DX just because of the Tokina 10-17mm (both for Nikon and Canon setups). It would be interesting to see those that have both lenses in their kit what they shoot with the most and their preferred lens. My guess would be the Tokina.

Regards Mark

Nice cod there Mark! I had a little reef shark swim into my port a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I had my 60 macro in, so all I got was a shark smudge.

It looks like I had better check this lens out. I had heard people raving about it but I wasn't aware that it was a FE lens. I suspect I could sell my 12 - 24 and get by with one lens easily enough, and for not a lot of bling...

Thanks everyone. Feel free to carry on the discussion!

Nice cod there Mark! I had a little reef shark swim into my port a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I had my 60 macro in, so all I got was a shark smudge.

 

It looks like I had better check this lens out. I had heard people raving about it but I wasn't aware that it was a FE lens. I suspect I could sell my 12 - 24 and get by with one lens easily enough, and for not a lot of bling...

 

Thanks everyone. Feel free to carry on the discussion!

Hey buddy

I started off shooting the 10.5 FE - as I could never get the 12-24 to do what I wanted it to do. The 10.5 FE had such a great DOF, and every shot just worked, This was back in the D70 days with an Ikelite. I just couldn't get a clue with the 12-24 back then.

Then Ike released the "bigga Dome"... all was right with the world.

Shortly after, I moved into the D200 and a couple of Light & Motion housings. That big 10" glass dome was sweet.

As the years went by, my 12-24 with an extension and a 2X on that huge glass L&M dome became my go to lens for all W/A - the 10.5 FE was just a drag to light. I don't dive in pristine waters - I dive in SoCal. Its dark on the best days, and green most of the time. That means getting real close. Easy peasy with the 10.5 FE, but when I was shooting people with it, it was so hard to light them without consistently getting the raccoon mask effect. The 12-24 was such a great lens for what I was doing. CFWA, portraits, Sea Lions, etc, etc, etc.

I pounded the 12-24. Year after year... getting better and better with it. I loved that lens. The 10.5 just sat in the bag trip after trip.

In November I moved to the D7000 and the Nauticam D7000 with the glass mini-zen dome. Sold the 10.5, and bought a Tokina 10-17. While I desperately miss the '24' of my 12-24, I am starting to love the Tokina.

I'm not a big fan of the Tokina above water - I still use my 12-24 for most dry interiors, as its not nearly as fishy as the 10-17.

I'm on the ragged edge of selling my beloved 12-24. I bit hard and bought that when I got my D70 ages ago. It cost about as much as the body, and more than I paid for the Ike D70 housing! I've had that lens for as long as I've been shooting DSLR (the Oly E10 and E20 don't count!) - I know I'll never use it underwater again, as long as I'm shooting the D7000 and the Mini Zen dome.

I was a total non-believer in the 10-24 Tokina. For years and years. But I've done a 180 on it. I blame Geitler and Canon for that! Scott and Ryan spun me around on the Tokina.

Now the 10-17 my only W/A lens.

-Ken

Thanks for the insights Ken. I enjoyed looking at your website too.... You have some fabulous work in there!