tokina 10-17mm fish eye on full frame

Hi all, I am going to invest in a tokina 10-17mm fish eye lens. I have a full frame canon 5d with seacam housing and a super dome. I want to check that the tokina 10- 17 mm lens is compatible. I think I need to get the version with a reduced hood (AT-X 107 NH?) And I may need an exextender for the lens. Can anyone offer any advice?

And when I say extender I mean on the dome port not the lens

Hi I guess you have seen this test? http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.html

and this: http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/sigma-15mm-tokina-fisheye-review

The Tokina wil work fine but you will get a circular image for settings 10-12 mm. Which (I guess) you can handle by cropping out the central part. I am not sure if a port extension is a solution. Maybe the Kenko 1.4 Teleconverter could help to get rid of the vignetting at 10-12 mm?

You can use the 10-17 on FF but you all be limited to the long end (15-17 mm). I posted some test shots a while back, comparing its use behind two small domes (4" and 6"). See http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49826&hl=%2Bdome+%2Bport+%2Btest

Why not go for a Sigma 15 FE?

Best regards,

--Rob

Albert is right that the Kenko 1.4 will remove (almost all?) the vignetting, but it'll also turn the lens into a 14-24mm(ish) lens. The Sigma 15mm FE is great.

Yeah, I'm with Fabian and Rob.

I had the Tokina 10-17 with DX and thought it brilliant - but not with FX.

I sold it and the 4" domeport and bits and bought the Sigma 15mm FE. It's excellent. I'm finding on FX that the Sigma 15FE and the Nikkor 105mm is all I really need.

I did the same as TimG and others. Sold the 10-17 and my Zen 100mm glass dome.

I thought about options and, after some research, bought the Sigma 15 FE and Zen 170mm dome. Traveling with the 170 is not as bad as I expected, though it's no 100mm!

I sometimes use the 15mm with a Kenko 1.4x TC and Extension Ring 20, with good results.

Yeah I guess its a question of personal taste. if you already have the Tok there is no real need to switch to a prime lense, since the quality of the lenses is about the same at 15mm. And if you own both a DX and FX camera (like some people) its nice to use the Tok on the DX and have it as as a back up for the FX.

On the Nauticam system, you’d need a 20mm extension usually with the Tokina and a large dome. I’d also buy a Sigma 15mm if you haven’t bought either yet, this fits directly behind the large dome.

Unless you already have the 10-17mm, I would strongly advise not getting it for use with Full Frame.

As other have mentioned, you can use it with a teleconverter, but this reduce image quality.

Again, I like the Sigma 15mm, or even better (but more expensive) is the Canon 8-15mm. This is full circle at the 8mm end, but the image and build quality quality are much better than the 10-17mm.

All the best

Adam

Wow. What a response! That is great. Some really useful information there. It sounds like the sigma 15mm is a good option. Although I do have a non full frame camera ad my 'casual cam' so may go for the tokina with that in mind. Many thanks all

Some discussions seem to be never ending. Llke: is FX format superior to DX format? And is a more expensive prime lens (Sigma 15mm or 10.5 mm Nikon) superior to a cheaper fish-eye zoom (Like the Tok 10-17mm)?

If you look at the (few) topside test results comparing Sigma with Tok 10-17 on a full frame camera, there seems to be no clear 'winner'. See for instance, http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49728&p=327452

To my knowledge, there have been no no critical tests yet comparing these two types of fish-eye lenses underwater. Using the same camera, dome, settings etc.

I have the nikon 16mm, but for underwater i actually used the tokina 10-17 with a convertor on d3s (i.e. fx) the zoom capability gives me much more flexibility underwater . so i swapped a much more expensive lens for a much cheaper lens and i personally enjoy it much more. and find much more flexible particularly for big animals such as sharks

You can use the 10-17 on FF but you all be limited to the long end (15-17 mm). I posted some test shots a while back, comparing its use behind two small domes (4" and 6"). See http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49826&hl=%2Bdome+%2Bport+%2Btest

Why not go for a Sigma 15 FE?

Best regards,

--Rob

The issue with the Sigma 15 is the non-removable lens hood and 100mm glass port(will not fit), if using the larger ports all is fin. Tokina makes two models of the 10-17, one with a hood and one without.

Hi I guess you have seen this test? http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.html

and this: http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/sigma-15mm-tokina-fisheye-review

The Tokina wil work fine but you will get a circular image for settings 10-12 mm. Which (I guess) you can handle by cropping out the central part. I am not sure if a port extension is a solution. Maybe the Kenko 1.4 Teleconverter could help to get rid of the vignetting at 10-12 mm?

When considering the Kenko 1.4x TC select the MC4 and not Pro 300. According to Kenko (same as Tokina) the Pro is optimized for >= 100mm and will cause fuzzy borders.

Folks, there are so many variables on this!

If you are shooting big animals in mid water, you will not notice the 10-17mm's distortion and poor corner performance, even with a small dome. If you are shooting reef scenes, with details in the corners, you definitely will.

My conclusion from using the D800 with a 10-17mm and a TC was: "I tested the D800 with a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye and a Kenko 1.4 x teleplus Pro 300 teleconverter. The combination produced vignetting, and image quality was significantly degraded."

http://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-d800-camera-review/P5

Put simply, the more optical elements you add, the stronger the likelihood that the image will be degraded.

I have experimented with the D810, Sigma 15mm and the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 X. It does "de-fisheye" the image somewhat (like the 10-17mm at 17mm) but the image is definitely not as sharp. For sure, this is a pixel peeping difference, but it is noticeable.

The best dome option for any fisheye lens with a full frame camera is a 6" or 170mm. The 4" domes are great with cropped sensor cameras....

Adam

I use the Nikon D3s, with seacam housing superdome and the token 10-17 with the 1.4 convertor. Pictures have been published by NatGeo, BBC etc etc - so it may be degraded but not too far. The only issue is at the 10 with some slight vignette. However what I don't like, same as the Nikon 16mm, is the slight reflection you can get from the lens protector / built in hood at a certain angle.

I've owned two Sigma 15mm fisheyes and neither was as sharp as the one Nikon 16mm fisheye I have. The sigma lens is particularly subject to flare compared to the Nikon lens. The same was true of the Sigma 14mm F2.4 vs the Nikon 14mm f2.8 lenses. Unfortunately, the Nikon 16mm fisheye doesn't focus nearly as close the sigma 15mm. Adding a teleconverter to any lens always results in some loss of optical quality, particularly with wide-angle lenses which are not what tele-converters were designed for. Adding a tele-converter to the Tokina fisheye zoom piles one image degrading factor on top of another.

Scubabunnie says she has had pictures taken with the 10-17mm combined with a 1.4x converter "published in NatGeo, BBC, etc,etc... The question is published where?? Was this "publication" on their website pages where they try to show many pictures from non-professional photographer contributors, that is a use where subject content is much more of a consideration than image quality. And where even iPhone images have been used. Have Scubabunnie's Tokina 10-17mm + 1.4x converter pictures been published in the printed version National Geographic magazine? The magazine with the yellow borders, among the normally high-quality editorial content of the magazine? Please let us know in which issue of National Geographic we can see your pictures taken with the 10-17 + 1.4x converter.