Wetpixel's Nikon FX wide-angle lens review

The key point to understand here is that focal length is not a reliable indicator as to whether a lens will work well behind a dome or not.
The position of the elements within the lens body, the actual combination of lens elements used and probably a bunch of other factors in the individual lens' design are the factors that make one lens better behind a dome than any other.

The Nikon 16-35mm  f/4 with a 240mm dome provide acceptable corner performance at apertures of f11 or so. (Acceptable is a personal  and subjective criteria!)

By comparison, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is a much better lens, performs badly behind a dome port in general. So you will get better results from the cheaper lens.

Fisheye lenses like your Sigma 15mm create a "curved" image that tend to not show the optical flaws in the lens/dome system. Rectilinear lenses, by comparison, particularly with high resolution cameras, tend to be much more challenging optically.

Will the 20mm or 24mm work behind a 210mm dome...I did test the 20mm behind a 240mm dome (http://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nikon-fx-wide-angle-lenses) and it was not great, so I would expect it to be worse behind a smaller dome. I have not shot the 24mm, but my instinct is that it will probably suffer from similar (or worse) problems.

The best solution I have found is the Nauticam WACP with the Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D. This gives an effective underwater zoom range of 130° to 57°, which gives an ideal option when you need more reach. It is also corner to corner sharp at f/5.6! There is no dome port/lens combination that offers anything like this. The downside is weight/price although when you factor in the cost of the lens, a large dome and and a big extension, the latter is less of an issue!

Adam

On 3/31/2015 at 1:40 AM, adamhanlon said:

Hi all,

 

At long last, I have posted a review that attempt to try and compare the performance of various wide-angle option for Nikon FX cameras. This is in part due to the frequently recurring threads on the forums about choosing these types of lenses.

 

It is not perfect, nor complete, so it would be great if it could spark some discussion too!

 

http://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nikon-fx-wide-angle-lenses

 

I look forward to being challenged.

 

Adam

Hi Adam

Last year just before I went to Raja Ampat I upgraded my gear I have a 14-24 2,8 but it didn't fit in my Seacam Compact Dome so I board a 14 mm NIKKOR  (because 12 years ago I used a Sigma 14 mm ) I was sure it was the right choice , then I started watching Wetpixel and Wetpixel live and found out that the 14-24 isn't  performing under water and the cheaper 16-35 was better, but now I have the 14 mm and the compact Dome, what would be the best thing to do ? get a super dome and use it with the 14 mm. or sell the 14 mm and get a 16-35 mm ( the camera is a Nikon D850)

the compact dome and the 14 mm has rather blurry corners. 

6 minutes ago, Gregersen said:

Hi Adam

Last year just before I went to Raja Ampat I upgraded my gear I have a 14-24 2,8 but it didn't fit in my Seacam Compact Dome so I board a 14 mm NIKKOR  (because 12 years ago I used a Sigma 14 mm ) I was sure it was the right choice , then I started watching Wetpixel and Wetpixel live and found out that the 14-24 isn't  performing under water and the cheaper 16-35 was better, but now I have the 14 mm and the compact Dome, what would be the best thing to do ? get a super dome and use it with the 14 mm. or sell the 14 mm and get a 16-35 mm ( the camera is a Nikon D850)

the compact dome and the 14 mm has rather blurry corners. 

Hi Gregersen

I'm sure Adam will respond but I thought I'd chip-in with a couple of thoughts as I've sort of been there with the D800.

I'm sure you have seen lots of posts about the difficulty of housing rectilinear lenses (like the 16-35 and the 14-24) on full frame sensors.

As you say, the general view is that 14-24 f2.8 does not house well and the 16-35 is better. That said, it's not straight-forward either!

The best combination seems to be a 230 dome with the appropriate EXR (90mm on my Subal system) plus the S&S correction lens. My experience of the 16-35 with a 230 dome (and no S&S) was way better than with a smaller dome but corners were still softish. I never tried it with a S&S.... Reason being, I found the 230 dome a real pain for travelling. I decided to switch to the Sigma 15mm which, for me, was great: smaller dome, less weight to move (no EXR). And that's what I stayed with until lI moved "up" to the D500 which, happily has none of those issues and I'm back with the good ol' Tokina 10-17 and the Nikkor 8-15. Small domes!

If travel is not an issue or a problem, then if you went with the 230 dome/EXR, the S&S conversion lens and the 16-35 you should be good. If travel is an issue, then, if it suits your photo style, the Sigma 15mm is great on FX. And you can always add a 1.4TC to get that bit extra.

Hope that helps a bit pending Adam's reply. 

It is a complicated answer.

I'll start with what I have done...
I use a WACP-1 with a SAGA adaptor and a Nikon 28-70 f/3.5 on my Seacam housing for (almost) rectilinear wide angle with D850

For fisheye, I use a Seacam CP port with a Nikon 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5 with the D850.

I have a Superdome with the appropriate extensions and a16-35 f/4, but since getting the WACP, have not used them much.

I have never shot the 14mm, but I expect that it will need a Superdome to get anything approaching decent corner sharpness. There may well be others who have direct experience of using it who are better versed in its use. 

My experience is that there is no way to get around a 230mm dome for rectilinear wide angle underwater with full frame cameras (and even then they need to be shot at f/11-f13), and the more resolution they have, the more optical flaws show in image. Squaring this with making the set up travel friendly is challenging!

5 hours ago, TimG said:

Hi Gregersen

I'm sure Adam will respond but I thought I'd chip-in with a couple of thoughts as I've sort of been there with the D800.

I'm sure you have seen lots of posts about the difficulty of housing rectilinear lenses (like the 16-35 and the 14-24) on full frame sensors.

As you say, the general view is that 14-24 f2.8 does not house well and the 16-35 is better. That said, it's not straight-forward either!

The best combination seems to be a 230 dome with the appropriate EXR (90mm on my Subal system) plus the S&S correction lens. My experience of the 16-35 with a 230 dome (and no S&S) was way better than with a smaller dome but corners were still softish. I never tried it with a S&S.... Reason being, I found the 230 dome a real pain for travelling. I decided to switch to the Sigma 15mm which, for me, was great: smaller dome, less weight to move (no EXR). And that's what I stayed with until lI moved "up" to the D500 which, happily has none of those issues and I'm back with the good ol' Tokina 10-17 and the Nikkor 8-15. Small domes!

If travel is not an issue or a problem, then if you went with the 230 dome/EXR, the S&S conversion lens and the 16-35 you should be good. If travel is an issue, then, if it suits your photo style, the Sigma 15mm is great on FX. And you can always add a 1.4TC to get that bit extra.

Hope that helps a bit pending Adam's reply. 

5 hours ago, TimG said:

Hi Gregersen

I'm sure Adam will respond but I thought I'd chip-in with a couple of thoughts as I've sort of been there with the D800.

I'm sure you have seen lots of posts about the difficulty of housing rectilinear lenses (like the 16-35 and the 14-24) on full frame sensors.

As you say, the general view is that 14-24 f2.8 does not house well and the 16-35 is better. That said, it's not straight-forward either!

The best combination seems to be a 230 dome with the appropriate EXR (90mm on my Subal system) plus the S&S correction lens. My experience of the 16-35 with a 230 dome (and no S&S) was way better than with a smaller dome but corners were still softish. I never tried it with a S&S.... Reason being, I found the 230 dome a real pain for travelling. I decided to switch to the Sigma 15mm which, for me, was great: smaller dome, less weight to move (no EXR). And that's what I stayed with until lI moved "up" to the D500 which, happily has none of those issues and I'm back with the good ol' Tokina 10-17 and the Nikkor 8-15. Small domes!

If travel is not an issue or a problem, then if you went with the 230 dome/EXR, the S&S conversion lens and the 16-35 you should be good. If travel is an issue, then, if it suits your photo style, the Sigma 15mm is great on FX. And you can always add a 1.4TC to get that bit extra.

Hope that helps a bit pending Adam's reply. 

Thanks Tim

3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

It is a complicated answer.

I'll start with what I have done...
I use a WACP-1 with a SAGA adaptor and a Nikon 28-70 f/3.5 on my Seacam housing for (almost) rectilinear wide angle with D850

For fisheye, I use a Seacam CP port with a Nikon 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5 with the D850.

I have a Superdome with the appropriate extensions and a16-35 f/4, but since getting the WACP, have not used them much.

I have never shot the 14mm, but I expect that it will need a Superdome to get anything approaching decent corner sharpness. There may well be others who have direct experience of using it who are better versed in its use. 

My experience is that there is no way to get around a 230mm dome for rectilinear wide angle underwater with full frame cameras (and even then they need to be shot at f/11-f13), and the more resolution they have, the more optical flaws show in image. Squaring this with making the set up travel friendly is challenging!

thank you all !! it is difficult to find the right answer, I think I will start testing with the 14 mm and a large dome 

I did some test shots with the 14mm Nikkor D-AF lens a few months ago - the sun finally came out but the salmon were done so I had to do something useful with the weather!!

I used a standard Seacam Superdome for these images. There are special versions (with larger throats and matching PVLs) for larger diameter lenses. The first pair is in a nearby lake shot at f/16. One is with and the other without lens corrections for the lens in Lightroom (proper lens automatically gets picked if tiny box is clicked).

The water was too shallow to submerge the dome all the way and am pointing the camera so as to not be shooting straight into the sun. Location is on the north shore of the lake making this challenging.

Marginal at f/16 is my conclusion.

Tom

The second pair was shot at f/22 in the creek that is just a few meters from where I took the previous shot. The water is even shallower. You can see the affect of the curved field on the rock in the foreground on the left side of the frame - more in focus toward the center of the frame (where the spruce needle is located on the rock). Pair same as above - one with corrections and one without. WP is allowing me to upload only one shot......:-<<<<

Conclusion: f/22 is still marginal.

Tom

Thanks Tom! This is great information.

I agree with your conclusions completely. It looks like the 14mm does not work well behind a dome...

Adam

Hi Adam,

Great article! I would love to see a similar review of the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 with the Zen 230mm dome. Especially compared to the rectilinear wide-angle lenses you tested. 

Thanks,

Larry