10-24mm nikon with or without diopter

Hello everyone, I use a 10-24 nikon lens on my d500 and was wondering if any of you using this lens use a +2 or +4 diopter with it

Thx 

I don't shoot either that camera or lens, but I suspect you would get better feedback if you also disclosed the port you are shooting through and any extension you are using.

I shot a D810, then D850, now Z9.   On the DSLR's, I shot a 16-35vr behind a 230mm dome with a 90mm extension.   My corners sucked.  I had a +2 diopter recommended by Bluewater Photo, but it never made a whit of difference in any way that I noticed.  

There are 2-3 regular WP readers who use the Nikkor 10-24. I'm sure one of them can tell you ..... standby!

Used a +2 all the time with the Nikkor 12-24DX back in the day.

Thanks guys I ll wait for the cavalry i am currently using a 230 mm dome from howshot with 50mm extension in nauticam housing and my d500 is a dx sensor  obviously. Yes my corners get sucked in too !! 

2 hours ago, nomadadv said:

Thanks guys I ll wait for the cavalry i am currently using a 230 mm dome from howshot with 50mm extension in nauticam housing and my d500 is a dx sensor  obviously. Yes my corners get sucked in too !! 

Hmmm, I'm sure you'll hear the clippety-cloppety of the cavalry soon - but I'd be a bit surprised if you need a diopter with a 230 dome. 

Tinman is definitely a 10-24mm user. You could always send him a PM.

Well i have been wondering if my 50 mm extension is too short i ll try to pm tinman thank you again, tim

On 11/8/2022 at 11:16 PM, nomadadv said:

Well i have been wondering if my 50 mm extension is too short i ll try to pm tinman thank you again, tim

Depends on the lens.  I used a 90mm extension with the 230mm and my 16-35, but I know for a while that 70mm's were recommended.   Now that 230mm dome is being used with a Z9 and 14-30, and the recommended extension is only 50mm.  (And my corners still sucked with the Internal Corrections Lens.)

Hi Craig , yes i think you are right i also use the 16-35 on my  d4 and i do believe my extension was 70 i need to check.... out of curiosity have you tried the 16-35 on the z9 ? im hearing a lot of good things on the 28-60 sony and ww1 on the z9 have you tried that?

Clippety-cloppety of the cavalry... I like that (LOL)!

Nope, I've never used a diopter with my Nikkor 10-24mm. It's always produced high quality images without a diopter. I used this lens to capture all but a few of the underwater images in my book, Dancing with Sea Lions. Several clients have rather large underwater images I captured with this lens hanging in their homes.

Unlike some of the Nikkor lenses listed in my port charts, a diopter isn't recommended for the 10-24mm. Diopters are usually recommended for lenses that lack the ability to close-focus on the virtual image inside of a dome port. The 10-24mm, used with the recommended port extension, close-focuses without any issues.

And, I used it for twelve years with an 8" dome port. I haven't tried it with my 240mm dome, but it'll probably work without any issues. If you have specific questions, don't hesitate to PM me.

-Tinman

I've used the 10-24 with the D500 and a 230mm dome a fair bit, and it does not need a diopter.

Like all rectilinear lenses though, corner sharpness is absolutely a function of prioritising aperture

Adam

8 hours ago, nomadadv said:

Hi Craig , yes i think you are right i also use the 16-35 on my  d4 and i do believe my extension was 70 i need to check.... out of curiosity have you tried the 16-35 on the z9 ? im hearing a lot of good things on the 28-60 sony and ww1 on the z9 have you tried that?

 

To be honest, I haven't really looked back at the F-mount lenses since I bought the Z9.   Reason is, I already bought the Z-mount lenses I needed before I took delivery of the Z9, because I took advantage of the 4th of July sales.   The only lens I've even tried with the FTZ ii is the 500pf, which basically has the FTZ welded to it.   The 14-30 has some of the same characteristics as the 16-35 (lots of barrel distortion at the wide end), but it sharper.   No particular reason to use the 16-35.   And for that matter I'm not entirely sure if the extension needs to be different when using the FTZ.

When I was shopping lenses, I needed to replicate what was working for me in f-mount.   That means a 3-zoom combo for travel that fits in my waist bag.  (16-35, 24-70, 80-100 => 14-30. 24-70 and 100-400).   I'm not sure the 100-400 can fill the role of the 80-400 yet, because in that role, 80 to 100 is important, as is the lens size.   For underwater, the 14-30 directly replaces the 16-35.

For primes, I shot a 35F1.4 ART (might yet try this on the FTZ), 50F1.4g, 85F1.4g and 105vr.     I replaced them with the 35F1.8s, 50F1.8s, 85F1.8s and 105F2.8s.   I can't see myself buying the F1.2 versions of any of these based on size and price.  F1.4 yes, but not F1.2.   (So Big!)

I have several other f-mount lenses (14-24F2.8, 70-200F2.8, 85F1.8, 50F1.8, dx lenses from back in the day), but I just don't use them and have no desire to replace them in z-mount.

I've long wished for a focal range of 16-50 (hey, the old 16-85!) or 16-70 to go in my dome port and allow me to get some closer-focus shots that don't need extreme cropping, but the whole normal range is just gone for me underwater.   I thought about the Sony 28-60 with the WACP-1, but it ends up being quite wide.

well if there was a proper metabone to accept old f mount on z ca you could've looked at rs lenses.... canon did really in well in there retro compatibility.... everyone seems to be shooting wacp its quite sad that its the only decent option available and that we all have to go through nauticam..