The best WA combo for 8in port in FX format

Dear all!
I know that the topic of wide angle lens' choices for FX has been looked at multiple times on this forum. However, I think I am even more confused than before I started researching the issue. I was hoping that you folks can give me an advice on what is the best WA lens to use on Nikon FX (D810) behind the 8in Aquatica port. I already own Nikon 14mm 2.8D and Nikon 16-35 VR. It seems that no one likes the results of these lenses behind the 8in dome. I am getting ready to switch from DX to FX. Almost certainly will continue to use Nauticam housing and would like to keep my Aquatica ports with adapter. Prefer to stick with the 8in as I already own one and have travel/packing figured out. Currently I use Tokina 10-17 on Nikon D7000 and am happy with the results. I do want to use FX and don't want to use this lens for my new setup. I do not mind buying a different WA lens like Sigma 15 fisheye or Tokina 17mm, but wanted to hear more opinions and see samples (good, or bad).

Thank you very much in advance.

Hi!

I'd certainly vote for the Sigma 15mm and am very happy with mine.

It'll work behnd an 8" dome and I find it great for the diver-on-the-reef type shots, or on wrecks. I had intended to use a Nikkor 16-35 for WA but since buying the Sigma, that has become my go-to wide-angle.

I love my Sigma 15 FE on Nikon FX. I have a 16-35 which I will definitely use as well, but the 15 works well behind my smaller Zen 170mm dome and doesn't need an extension ring. It works with the Kenko 1.4x DGX Tele nicely, and that combo needs the 20mm extension ring (Nauticam housing).

The 16-35 needs a bigger dome port, 9" preferred, but for now I have a Nauticam 8.5" that I'll try (just bought the 16-35 last week). I tried a friend's Zen 200mm and 16-35 last year on a trip, and found it to be very good.

Thank you both TimG and CamelToad very much! It seems like Sigma 15 mm fisheye is my next purchase...it just never ends. BTW TimG your pictures on your website are awesome!

Thank you both again for the input.

Thank you both TimG and CamelToad very much! It seems like Sigma 15 mm fisheye is my next purchase...it just never ends. BTW TimG your pictures on your website are awesome!

Thank you both again for the input.

Thanks! Much appreciated

And you are right, it does never end......

You might want to consider not "upgrading" to FX, but just get a D500 when available. The high-iso argument for FX diminishes with each iteration of DX and the loss of the 10-17 is a serious backward step, in my opinion. I shot D7000 and now D800 and the size and weight of big glass domes is also or drawback.

I like FX in the water, but traveling with it (800E, Subal, Zen 9") is so awful it has me looking toward the D500.

Well yeah...traveling with DSLR makes me want to go back to a Rx100...until I am in the water, of course.

Yep, I'm with James. FX is a pain to travel with. But the results..... ahhh, the results

Oh my! What are you dong to me? I am an amateur with the long standing love for photography, particularly underwater. Tried to build my own housings back long time ago in the home country and failed miserably. I like FX. Always did, from the times when I decided to keep my film lenses. I want to downsize to one system rather than DX and FX. Made up my mind and decided that it would be FX. Listened to TomG, looked at his and some other folks' pictures and got Sigma 15 mm. Upgraded my old trusty Nikon 105 2.8 to VR version. All set to make a plunge - and now this D500 idea! Travel is a consideration of course... but I live in California and dive here quite a bit as well. I'll let everyone on the thread kow what I'll decide. Or perhaps, you'll see Nauticam D7000 system with a whole lot of lenses... Not that anyone will be anxious to buy that "so 2009 equipment".

Seriously, though, thank you very much, everyone, for advice and taking time to put it in writing.

On a different note - what is the weight difference of the 9in glass dome port and 8in acrylic port? I usually try to pack all photo stuff in the carry-on and pretend that it doesn't weigh that much.

I don't know what the difference is exactly (I've owned them both, now have a 9") but the size/weight difference is significant!

Hey Akulamd

Yes, doesn't that D500 just make ya groan! I thought the same thing having moved - and invested heavily - in FX after using, happily, a D300 for years. For the FX images are amazing.

There have been threads before on the difference between acrylic and glass. Essentially though acrylic is cheaper, lighter, more likeable to scratch and, to a degree, scratch repairable. Glass is heavy, expensive, less likely to scratch - and not really repairable.

But there isn big difference - literally - between 8" and 9". Size alone as funkeyspeelunker says! That 1" makes quite a difference. And depending on EXR/diopter etc combinations, the 9" should give better edges with rectilinear lenses than 8".