Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on full frame

Some 800s had focus issues from new - Thom Hogan did an article on how to test http://www.bythom.com/D800autofocus.htm

Thewre are also several other reports about issues with the repair procedure etc in his 2012 archive.

"Anyone knows the FNP (Front Nodal Point) of the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR for use with a 9 inch Dome port on full frame?"

I measured it crudely as 103.5mm in front of the camera lens mount surface, at 16mm. As far as I understand it, this is where the centre of curvature of the dome should be located. So you need to measure the internal radius of the dome, best done by trial and error with thin card and a pencil and compasses.

This spot in the lens is also known as the no parallax point and the apparent front entrance pupil.

If anyone has a more accurate measurement (Jean??) I'd love to hear about it!

Anyone knows the FNP (Front Nodal Point) of the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR for use with a 9 inch Dome port on full frame?

 

There seem to be different indications on port extensions from manufacturers: Subal says it needs a 90mm extension ring, Seacam says 70mm. I have used it with my old 60mm extension ring on a 8-inch dome port and I am not sure if this is the right set-up.

 

With the exact FNP one can measure the correct extension needed following the dome port theory....

Buddy,

What 9-inch dome port are you using with Subal? I'd also be very interested in what extension ring to use.

Joe

In the past I have used Subal's 8inch Domeport (DP-FE2/3) with an 65mm Extension ring. But I plan to change it into Subal's DP-230/4 with 90mm extension ring (as recommended by Subal for 16-35 f/4). This is the larger 9 inch Dome port (I believe it is the same as the one from ZEN). There is even a 10 inch super dome port from Subal, but I consider this one not optimal for me in terms of portability and price as well.

But before doing the switch I am going to measure the actual FNP and with this to measure the exact extension ring lenghts for my rig, when I have more time...

Do you guys have any updates on these lenses? I am looking into buying a wide angle zoom for the D800 and can't decide.

A least here in Italy the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm 1:4G ED is very popular on the D800 as this lens is tack sharp and
slightly cheaper than the professional lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF and if the lower f/stop of 4,0 instead of 2,8 is a issue is a personal belief

I am using the Sigma 15mm as WA lens for wide angle, but the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm 1:4G ED lens is on the top of my shopping list.

One of Italy's best underwater photographer is using the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm 1:4G ED in a Subal housing with excellent results, but

a zoom lens under water is always difficult to handle for a dome.

Chris

Ive been using the 16-35mm zoom in a D800 Aquatica housing with an 8 inch dome port and am quite pleased with the corner to corner performance. The wide angle shots on my website www.ericpeterblackimages-uw.com were all made with this lens. I do bump up the ISO to deal with the dimmer conditions when they are present and need to be dealt with but again, I am quite pleased with the results I get from ISO 400-640 on this particular camera with that lens. I have the 14-24 but have not yet used it underwater due to the older dome port I use which doesn't have a wide enough rear access to handle the lens fitting through it. Id love to try it out, just not too sure I want to invest in yet another port for something that might be soft around the edges.

3 recent examples for the Nikon 16-35mm, Subal 9 inch Dome port (DP-230/4), 90mm extension ring (as recommended by Subal), no close focus diopter (Subal recommends a +2), Nikon D4.

All with ISO 100, f11, 1/160s - 1/250s, at 16mm zoom level.

My preliminary conclusion: the corner to corner sharpness is better than with the 8inch dome port, but still is not at 100%. Maybe it needs an even smaller aperture or a different extension ring or the +2-diopter. On some lens test this lens is supposed to perform better at 16mm than at 35mm.

Other opinions?

Just realized there is a parallel discussion on the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8. Well after years of tinkering I think I have made a port that could make good this superb rectilinear wide zoom underwater.

here is a sample at 14mm end f5.6. Reduced res for forum and unsharp mask and no other modification. Let me know what you think?

Here is a link to the video forum. I originally intended to use this lens for large sensor videocameras. I shoot digital stills too.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51246

Great shot Loftus. I don't see anything wrong with her.....er...it...the shot I mean. Corners? I wasn't looking in the corners.

Also very nice 14-24mm shot Alex! I shoot the 14-24mm topside as my D600 does not have a housing and so I'm still using a D70. Topside its excellent. My results are consistent with the reviews, the shrpest I have seen even in the corners. According to the reviews including DXOmark, the corners topside on the 14-24mm are supposed to be sharper than the 16-35. Topside, the wide end of the 14-24mm is unbeatable for bringing the viewer into the frame. I've had zero troubles using it without a protective filter even with the bulbous dome. Just be careful and don't be afraid use it like a tool not a jewel.

I think the issue Alex is referring to is performance behind a dome. AFAIK no one has really figured out yet the best formula for this lens behind a dome. That combined with the inability to use filters gives the edge underwater to the 16-35mm.

I plan to sell my 11-16mm and 10.5mm and buy the 16-35mm to use underwater with the D600 and topside with a polarizer. But for now, I'm still enjoying the D70. I picked up 2 barely used D70s bodies for $100 each and they are great in my D70 housing (my D70 is very worn out).