WA Lens Comparison

As Craig suggested you should consider the Sigma 15mm FE as well. I shot with this lens on 6 dives last week and really liked it. Its pretty wide so it really forces you to get close to your subjects.

I'm planning to get the 10.5 at some point but for most shots I think it would be too wide. Its difficult to fill a pleasing percentage of the frame with this lens on most subjets and its hard to keep other divers out of the frame. I think it would be awesome for wrecks, whalesharks and reef scenics though.

I think the 15mm is a better compromise. I also use the 12-24mm and the flexibility is nice but nothing beats the simplicity and sharpness of the prime. I probably would have shot the 12-24mm but twice the divemaster sucked me in thinking we would do a wreck dive that never happenned.

I have both the 12-24 and the 10.5 and just finished updating my gallery after 90 days of shooting both lenses.

Stats - 90 calendar days, 41 dive days, 82 dives, 80 hours of bottom time, 3500 pictures taken, 510 "keepers" of which 79 were "gallery quality" i.e. the ones I put in my personal gallery.

Some surprises.

1. I was surprised to see how many shots I was taking with the Nikkor 12-24 lens zoomed to 24mm. When I got the lens I thought I would be shooting mostly with the lens at it's widest setting i.e. 12mm. The reason I think I am zooming more than I did with my C-5050 rig is that with the optical view finder on the D70 and no shutter lag, I can get spot on compositions and I don't get the severe corner blurring that I got when I zoomed my C-5050 with the INON wide angle lens with a dome.

2. I was also surprised to see the number of "gallery quality" pictures I got shooting my Nikkor 10.5 since I only used it on 12 of 82 dives. Turns out the 10.5 is a very versatile lens which is capable of shooting both close focus wide angle (as close as 1.5 inches to the port) and extreme wide angle shots.

Based on this review I plan to use the 10.5 as my default lens instead of the 12-24.

For sample pictures, see the following URL .

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall...gallery.htm#D70 Pics

Well, I bought the 12-24 after trying it out one weekend. Wow, what a fabulous lens! The dome port, etc. is ordered and on its way, hopefully in time for a visit to the Keys.

Thanks you all, for the suggestions!

Sorry James, I missed your post asking about Optiquatics. A great trip to the Northern Channel Islands on the Peace. Joe is a patient, constructive guy. I tested the 12-24 and the 16mm. I never tried the 10.5 lens. I really liked the versatility of the zoom. I've always been macro heavy, but this lens might change my mind. I was very happy with the first time out results. I can't wait to dive the oil rigs with it.

I can't wait to dive the oil rigs with it.

I don't have one yet, but from what I have seen, when I get my 10.5, the rigs are the first dive I would want to do with it!

Not that I think the 12-24 will suck there, but it just seems like the rigs cry out for that "look" you can get with the 10.5.

I think the full frame fisheye is a specialty lens and should not be considered as your first and only WA choice. The 16mm gives great quality with the D100 as does the Sigma 15mm fisheye but it's hard to beat the versatility of a zoom. The 12-24 would be my first choice. You can pick either of the fisheyes next depending on whether you want the 180 field or not.

I have both lenses. Personally I see this the other way around.

By preference I would almost always use the 10.5, saving the 12 to 24 for specific tasks only. My 12 to 24 spends most of its time gathering dust in my camera bag.

The results I have seen with the 16mm fisheye have left me a bit cold. You get all of the barrel distortion that lens provides but only about 110 degrees of coverage. I haven't used the Sigma 15mm but i suspect it's much the same.

I guess to a degree my opinion is coloured by the fact that I dislike using zoom lenses underwater. I prefer to frame by moving myself relative to the subject rather than zooming. I find this usually serves to get less water between me and the subject.

I would say that you get very little, not all, of the barrel distortion of the fisheye. In fact, virtually none of it. If extreme distortion is what you want, the 15/16mm fisheye on a cropped sensor will leave you disappointed.

Curious that someone would consider a fisheye more versatile than a zoom.

Re "Curious that someone would consider a fisheye more versatile than a zoom."

I'm coming to that point of view because the 10.5 can focus down to 1.5 " in front of the lens which makes it great for close focus wide angle. And when shooting big stuff e.g. turtles, sharks etc. I can get closer and therefore better light the subject than with my 12-24.

For sample pics, see Group 8 on the following page.

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall...ple_gallery.htm

And when shooting big stuff e.g. turtles, sharks etc. I can get closer and therefore better light the subject than with my 12-24.

Right on. This is why I like the 15mm FE. You get the advantage of 120 degree coverage and very close focus but don't have to be too close to fill the frame. If you are very skilled (or lucky) you can do this with the 10.5 by getting multiple subjects in the frame which makes a very pleasing picture. But often its hard to get that turtle lined up with that sponge. For most scenarios I think the 15mm is just wide enough and represents a good compromise.

Most subjects don't let you get 1.5" from the lens and even when you do you can't light them. The difference between 2" and 12" from a water quality standpoint is not that great either. 180 degree fisheyes are great for certain shots but you can't say it's a versatile lens. I consider the 15/16 more versatile and a wide zoom far more versatile still. If all you shoot is whale sharks then the 10.5 may do as your only wide angle.

New player in the segment:

Does anybody have experience or info about the Tokina 12-24? LINK.

This lens can be purchased here in Europe for the interesting price of € 549 LINK

When I can find some pleasing testresults, this lens is on my wishlist.

Cheers..

Most subjects don't let you get 1.5" from the lens and even when you do you can't light them.

Hey Craig, remember we're talking about dome port optics here, the world ends up only a matter of inches from the front of the lens. If you put a critter or diver at portrait distance it's virtual image gets very close indeed. We're not talking 1.5" here, that would be inside the dome, but the virtual image of an object a 12" outside the dome ends up very close to the glass.

There's loads of great shots to be captured with a diagonal fisheye, wrecks, caves, large shoals, jetties. I can see why you like the zoom, it works with your style, but I can also see the appeal of FE primes, I'm getting some nice shots with mine. I just need some more dive time now.

I'm also very happy that I now have the option of shooting rectilinear, now that I've taken the time to get PTLens working.

Regards,

Martyn