Nikon 12-24mm

I have used the Nikon 12-24mm several times (with thanks to Peter Rowlands and Robert Delfs) and I am debating whether to buy one for myself.

My concern is with the optical quality of this lens - does it really cut it. If Nikon were to bring out a 12-24mm with similar quality to the superb 17-35mm AFS I would buy it. But I doubt that this will happen. The 12-24mm is a similar quality to the 18-35mm.

At present I am using a 16mm FE as an alternative and like it very much. But I can't mount a UR Pro on it. Plus a wide rectilinear lens would be useful. Although I sometimes feel that the 12-24mm images have a tunnel look to my eyes! Maybe I shoot too much Fisheye?

Any thoughts, general comments or advice would be appreciated? And what about the alternatives from Sigma?

Alex

I use the Sigma 12-24. There has been written a lot about this lens and I don't think it will outperform the Nikon at all or in the way you would want it to.

Personally I am excited about the new Sigma 10-20mm with HSM (ultrasonic focus with manual override as well). Different to the Sigma 12-24 the lens is designed for APS-C only (less compromise for such a wideangle when full frame coverage is left out). So I expect the lens to beat my current Sigma 12-24 (which is a full frame lens) and maybe some others as well.

Just received latest copy of a german photomag and test results state the Tokina 12-24 is surprisingly good and beating Canon 10-22 and Nikon 12-24 in terms of optical quality. But you know what photomag tests claim sometimes. And I think Tokina has a very slow AF-Motor from what I've read. But I've never had it in my hands.

However - none of these lenses will produce the fisheye's image quality :-)

just my little two euro-cents :-)

Julian

Two Euro-cents are worth a bit more these days. I would not be surprised to see some wide angle primes developed for the APS-C cameras. At least Sigma has announced a 30mm f/1.4 normal lens. The retro-ratio (relationship between the back focus distance and focal length) for ASP-C lenses will have to be as great as for full-frame lenses of the same FL, which means a more elaborate design, possibly even more expensive than film lenses with equivalent angle of view. In the case of lenses for full-frame dSLRs, new WA primes need to be developed too. In both cases the exit pupil needs to be as far from the image plane as possible and this may require increasing the retro-ratio on FF lenses too. I expect really good lenses will be expensive.

Tom

If you shoot between f8 -f11 behind a well designed port, I think you would love this lens.

Karl

I am not happy with it when using with Sea and Sea housing/compact dome port combination which requires diopter. However I love the zoom range that it gives and is very versatile. Hopefully when my Subal housing and port arrive, it will be a better match with a larger domeport.

A quesion for those more experienced than I:

I am looking for a wide-angle lens as a second lens for my subal-housed D70. Currently I only have the 18-70 kit lens. Which is a better choice for a beginner, the 10.5 fisheye or the 12-24mm? Which lens would I "grow into" more?

Thanks!

Brad

I would recommend the 15mm Sigma as your first really wide lens.

Cheers

James

Hey Guys

I've been using the Nikkor 12-24 for about a year and probably shoot with it about 40% of the time. Until about two weeks ago it was the widest lens I had. (Having just seen some of Alex's Nikkor 10.5mm shots, I have treated myself for an upcoming trip to Sipadan). My D100 is in a Subal D10 housing with the FE2 port.

I think the lens is superb and I am delighted with many of the results I get with it. Heaven only knows what it would be like in the hands of someone of Alex's calibre. Colour saturation is good, focus is sharp - and the zoom range provides plenty of flexibility. I can't see the "tunnel vision" that Alex describes. For me, it opens up the horizon completely and I find it especially good for those shots of "some close-up feature on the wall" with a back-drop of divers in the blue plunging away from it.

I'm on the road at the moment - a few days in the UK - and only have the attached pic which will give you some idea. But for me, the 12-24 has become my "standard" lens.

I've been using the Nikon 12-24 over a year and love it. It's the lens I use when I'm not sure what I'm going to encounter but want to shoot wide angle. It's a bit soft in the corners at the wide f-stops (+2 diopter, subal 8-inch dome) but that's acceptable. Extremely versatile lens, excellent picture quality.

But if you want to go really wide, nothing beats the Nikon 10.5.

I have the 12-24 but hardly ever use it as I find the 10.5 almost irresistable as I'm getting ready for a dive.

WHen the 12-24 was my only ultrawide (weitwinkel) I liked it very much - my only complaint was that the Aquatica zoom ring was kindof a hack job and often didn't line up well. Then I got the 10.5 and hardly ever shot the 12-24 in the housing. Then I got the f100 and 17-35 and I'm hooked. I think the biggest difference is the brightness of the screen. Image wise I don't think the 12-24 falls far behind, but build-wise there is no comparison. I ordered the Seacam 12-24 extension and zoom ring, and I'll give you an update when my D2x housing arrives...

On land - the lens is very nice to shoot, but I find few cases in which the 17-35 isn't wide enough for my purposes. I'm thinking that the 17-55 plus the 10.5 might be the combo of choice for land and sea IMHO.

Thank you everyone for your advice. I think I am going to leave it for a while and stick with the 10.5mm, 16mm and 17-35mm as my wide angle set. Those who have seen my photography know that I am a 10.5mm addict.

Plus this decision is as much based on the fact I am hardly rolling in loose cash since the purchase of the D2X, as anything else!

For those who haven't seen it - check out Eric Hanauer's White Shark cover shot on his website. One of the best dive mag covers I have seen for while. Talk about leaping off the newstand. It bites your hand off! That's a great shot being used perfectly, Eric!

Alex

Alex's decision aside - just a comment on this lens.

Behind the right dome port and topside, the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens is fantastic.

I honestly have never made so many sales from one lens - it paid for itself in the first day I owned it (some topside images for a children's magazine) and it has been a huge performer for me across the board.

I have 10.5 fisheye as well and tend tos shy away from it as it a little too wide for some the images I like to shoot. I only tend to grab this lens when I looking real big or want to use the fisheye effect which is certainly not an every dive thing.

Optical quality? Never saw anything that would stop a sale or hugely impact an image anyway

On the other hand I shoot it at F8+ where possible and I like the shorter end (I rarely shoot at 12mm except at wrecks - most shots seem in the 16-20mm range) which seems to suit the subjects I like to shoot.

M

I agree with the value of this lens topside - it is simply superb. I have also been pleased with its performance uw, but I'm looking forward to teaming it with a more appropriate dome.

Has anybody tried this lens with the new Nexus Port or even seen results?

I have the 12-24mm, 17-35mm and 16mm fe. In turns of pure sharpness the 16mm is definitely tops followed by the 17-35mm. I rarely use the 16mm though. The 12-24mm is OK and allows far better framing options. The 17-35mm is defititely sharper than the 12-24mm, but underwater results aren't all that different, so I've found myself using the 12-24mm for the most part.

Unless I'm doing landscape, I use the 17-35mm topside, where its clearly sharper than the 12-24mm.

Top-side, and living in Afghanistan (!), my 12-24 is my lens of choice. The opportunity to get in close - and have lots of background is excellent. But I'm really looking forward to trying out my new 10.5mm in Sipadan next month. I'm looking forward to getting wet again too.

Have a look at www.copix.co.uk and search Afghanistan if you are interested! Well it makes a change from underwater pixs. I guarantee a water-free environment.

I use the 12-24mm in the Nexus 170 dome port and this is my only wide angle setup. I've been completely satisfied with results and greatly enjoy the flexibility provided by the zoom range. I think a 10.5mm would be fun to try and probably a great lens to use in certain circumstances, but I can't imagine it would ever offer the great everyday utility of the 12-24. Highly recommended.

I see someone says they find it soft at the edges with Subal and plus 2 dioptre.

I am new to digital and this lens underwater but I have extensive experience with film and the Subal Seacam Aquatica Sea& Sea and Nexus housings I own. I found that it was impoortant to use a large dome and no dioptre lens when used with the 20mm lens (on film) or that lens was unacceptably soft at the edges. The Subal I have bought for digital has a large dome and I have checked the newly purchased 12-24 focusses underwater (in a flooded quarry) without a supplementary lens. Am I going to have problems with my first trip in the sea? Why do you use the plus 2 dioptre? (Steve at Oceanoptics says I do not need it.)

John you ol bugger, how are ya? Its Mike ex of Tahiti Aggressor. Haven't seen you since DEMA. Finally going digital eh? Welcome to Wetpixel, you will find i am still a sarcastic Canadian even from overseas....

I have the 12-24, don't have a huge amount of experience with it as of yet but i don't use dioptres behind the Aquatica 8" w/ring. Haven't noticed any real loss of quality, at least not something that would ever hold a photo back from being published.

When you comin out Micronesia way again? Perhaps i can get bit by a manta for you? Our sharks won't take the fish from my hand...