Nikon Z 14-30 f4s vs 14-24 f2.8s

Hi I am currently using nikon Z7ii and was wondering which choice I should go with between these 2 lenses as I am not quite fond of the 8-15 Fisheye lense.

Can anyone give me answers on the following:

1. As we usually shoot around F8 will the 14-24 f2.8s give better corner performance for UWP

2. Which dome produce better photo between 8.5" Arcylic Dome and 180mm Optical glass dome

I would really appreciate any suggestions you guys can give me

Thank you very much

I haven't shot either behind a dome port, but would suggest that both will not give great results at f/8. From everything that I have heard and/or read about these lenses, they are not stellar performers behind a dome. Rectilinear lenses with full frame cameras really need to be shot at f/10 or greater in my experience, in order to get acceptable corner sharpness.

The bigger the dome, the better it will work. There is practically no difference in the optical performance of acrylic vs glass, although glass tends to be last better and be more resistant to scratching. 

Corrner performance is down to physics for a given lens focal length all else being equal.  The corners are unsharp as the lens is trying to bring a curved virtual image into focus while the lenses are designed to bring a straight line into focus.  As the corners are physically closer they fall outside the plane of sharp focus and end up rendering soft.   A larger dome places the virtual image further away and the difference in distance between centre and edge is closer to falling in the plane of sharp focus.  On top of this you need to stop down enough to increase depth of field bring everything into focus.   

Agree with Adam f8 is not enough with any dome to bring everything into focus.  An 180mm dome is also too small even stopped down to get good corners.

This link has shot taken with a 17mm lens shot at f8 on full frame with a 170mm dome.  The 14mm will be significantly worse :https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

This is why fisheye lenses are popular underwater as they are not constrained by bringing a curved virtual image into focus and they will work at slightly more moderate apertures with smaller domes than rectilinear lenses in a dome and be sharp to the edge of frame.

If you don't like fisheyes perhaps  WACP might be a better option, somewhat expensive as  Nikon does not have a suitable lens to use with the WWL, but certainly superior results to a rectilinear lens in a dome.

The 14-30mm f4 takes 82mm filters so you could use the S&S correction lens with it to improve your corners, it is available in 77 and 82mm filter sizes.  I believe it is discontinued so you would be looking for  a second hand one or there may be some stock out in stores.  You would still want to use this with a 230mm dome.

15 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

I haven't shot either behind a dome port, but would suggest that both will not give great results at f/8. From everything that I have heard and/or read about these lenses, they are not stellar performers behind a dome. Rectilinear lenses with full frame cameras really need to be shot at f/10 or greater in my experience, in order to get acceptable corner sharpness.

The bigger the dome, the better it will work. There is practically no difference in the optical performance of acrylic vs glass, although glass tends to be last better and be more resistant to scratching. 

14 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Corrner performance is down to physics for a given lens focal length all else being equal.  The corners are unsharp as the lens is trying to bring a curved virtual image into focus while the lenses are designed to bring a straight line into focus.  As the corners are physically closer they fall outside the plane of sharp focus and end up rendering soft.   A larger dome places the virtual image further away and the difference in distance between centre and edge is closer to falling in the plane of sharp focus.  On top of this you need to stop down enough to increase depth of field bring everything into focus.   

Agree with Adam f8 is not enough with any dome to bring everything into focus.  An 180mm dome is also too small even stopped down to get good corners.

This link has shot taken with a 17mm lens shot at f8 on full frame with a 170mm dome.  The 14mm will be significantly worse :https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

This is why fisheye lenses are popular underwater as they are not constrained by bringing a curved virtual image into focus and they will work at slightly more moderate apertures with smaller domes than rectilinear lenses in a dome and be sharp to the edge of frame.

If you don't like fisheyes perhaps  WACP might be a better option, somewhat expensive as  Nikon does not have a suitable lens to use with the WWL, but certainly superior results to a rectilinear lens in a dome.

The 14-30mm f4 takes 82mm filters so you could use the S&S correction lens with it to improve your corners, it is available in 77 and 82mm filter sizes.  I believe it is discontinued so you would be looking for  a second hand one or there may be some stock out in stores.  You would still want to use this with a 230mm dome.

 

Thank you both for the information I will take a look at both of your suggestions

I have used the Z 14-30mm F/4 with the 82mm Sea & Sea correction lens and the Nikon Z6 the lens is sharp but it is not internal zoom so you have about a two inch throw from wide to 30mm end of the lens. My test was with the Ikelite eight inch compact port which is not the same as the full larger eight inch port. With the S&S correction lens corners got bad at the wider ends of the lens do to dome size so I would recommend the 8.5 acrylic over the 180 and that would be with or without the S&S.

Compatible with Nauticam housings   

For best results you can use WWL-1/1B with the Z 35mm F/1.8 s and get to 110 degree angle of coverage. 

For the full zoom through range from 130 to 59 degrees you need WACP-1 and the Sony 28-70mm with Techart Pro adapter.

Photos at 17mm and 26.5mm.

As a footnote Nikon has a new Z 28mm F/2.8 that takes a 52mm filter. This lens may be small enough to work with the WWL-1/1B and give the full 130 degree AOV.