Nikon 12-24mm

John

I don't use a diopter either with my Subal FE2 - no problems. It looks pretty sharp to me edge-to-edge: and certainly does top-side

The answer is a bit of a yes and no.

Certainly if you are shooting large subjects (people, mantas, sharks etc - like you both tend to), which are a decent distance from the lens (say more than 4 feet) then you won't find the need for a dioptre. But if you are focusing close to the camera then you will get a loss of sharpness in the corners.

Briefly, the dome acts a negative lens UW. Creating a virtual image that the lens must focus on. This virtual image is not flat - but curves towards the camera in the corners.

When the subject is far away from the lens - the inherent DOF will insure that all of this curved plane of the virtual image is in focus. You also tend to get away with it when the corners of your image are open water as you can't tell/doesn't matter if it sharp. Furthermore if the corners of the frame contain more distant subject matter than the centre then you will also get away with it.

The problems come when the corners are closer to the lens than the centre of the frame. Such as in a typical reef shot - where the bottom subject matter at the bottom of the frame is closest to the camera. Then when you focus on the centre of the virtual image - the corners are too close and aren't sharp. The problem is accentuate when you open up the aperture - and the 12-24mm is particularly sensitive to this.

The dioptre is used to help the lens keep the corners of the frame within its range when close focussing.

For the sorts of images that you take for the magazine, John - that are usual of the exciting big creatures or of people you will OK without the dioptre - but if you are planning to do reef shots and wide aperture/low light shooting then the dioptre would be worthwhile.

Alex

Wow, thanks for that Alex, fascinating.

I guess I will have to wait and see!

Hi, Mike (by the way). Nice to hear you still have all your fingers! (Leave that to the Frenchies eh?)

I try to limit myself to 14 diving trips a year now and the world is such a big place! Buty of course I have to go to DEMA so that people get a chance to get me on the ropes. (Rope-a-dope!)

However Stan is still 26 years ahead on me with anecdotes so the pressure is still on!

Hi Alex,

It's a great lens, very crisp and flexible. It is the only reason I could get this shot. A 10.5 would not have accomplished the job.

Joe

Wow, thanks for that Alex, fascinating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I decided to go the long route on the explanation for general benefit. I'm sure that John and Mike are pretty sharp on their dome optics. Nice to be appreciated.

And on that note, Joe that is a cracker of a shot! Fantastic lighting. Posting images like that may not be good for the already unhealthy Mustard bank balance.

But I wouldn't say that a full frame fisheye (like the 10.5mm) is completely useless in those conditions.

Alex

My experience with Aquatica's 8" dome and the 12-24 has shown excellent results without a diopter.

The results compared favourably with my scanned Nikonos 15mm pictures. Not better than the latter but quite acceptable.

Michel Gilbert

Thanks for boosting my confidence, those who say it's an OK lens.

I have a (large) safe full of top quality equipment (eg. several Hasselblads and all the lenses and the Nikon outfit I used when I worked for Penthouse Mag) that I hardly ever use but then I have been a photographer since 1966!

I believe in keeping things simple underwater. I used to dive with two Nik Vs with 15mm lenses then swapped to a Nikons with 20mm lens behind a dome port. (I always take two of everything in case of flooding or technical failures so there's never much room for alternatives.)

Now going digital, I decided that (1) I had to have cameras I could afford to flood (2) I needed to use existing TTL flashguns from my kit (3) I had to choose one lens - and the 12-24 seemed to be the theoretical perfect answer. But as we all know theories often do not seem to work out the moment you are under water!

So John, the question begs to be asked...what camera and housing did you buy?

ps Penthouse? Fish must be sooooooo boring.....but easier to work with i'm sure

John,

"Fish & Models have a lot in common " - would you not agree ?

I tend to agree with you as it being a SAFE lense. My best experience has been with it at around 20mm , rather than 12mm. ( see attached image )

I actually recall lot's of frustration with this lense before I wound it up a little. ( when I was shooting film 18-35 was my favourite )

I am wondering what combo's ( ports , domes , diopter's ) other user's are using to get their best results.

Having just dropped my 16mm fisheye. ( it has very serious issues ! ) I only have one other option in my bag.

I am about to go into the field with this lens as a major partner to my new D2X / Subal combo and welcome any pointer's. Like William Heaton I find W/A a lot more work than close up and macro.

Any pointer's would be appreciated.

Best

Peter

I am hardly in a position to recommend the kit I bought since I have not really tried it out extensively yet. I had already an S2 Pro that I used for studio product shots quite successfully (Manual with studio flash) so I bought another (secondhand). Of course, since it is an obsolete camera I bought the first housing that I could find (old stock) - a Subal with a glass dome and extension ring to accommodate the 12-24mm. I have bought so many different housings for film use I know I can work with any of them. I now use Subtronic flashguns since the demise opf my several SB104. I have done one underwater shoot so far and the TTL exposure looked perfect.

I'm sorry but I'm not really into equipment. I just want stuff that works!

Hello All,

I too am considering the peurchase of the 12-24mm zoom - however my question is does anybody have experience with the new Tokina 12-24mm f4 zoom? According to reviews I have seen it seems to perform pretty well comapared to the Nikkor and of course is around half the price. They seem to be difficult to get hold of at present though. There is also the forthcoiming Sigma 10-22 zoom to consider - although I have not found a review of this one as yet.

Many thanks.

Mark Webster

D100, Titan etc.

I too am considering a lens...Now the question is the 12-24 or 17-35? These are the only options I have with my current housing/port combo. Titan/Sea & Sea Dome....I have read these posts and still can't make a decision...Eagle Rays and men in gray suits is what I will use this for....can't afford both nor do I feel I need both. My 10.5 does wonders behind the dome and just need that boost for rays and sharks....any guidance Alex and all???

Aurabest,

john

Hello All,

 

I too am considering the peurchase of the 12-24mm zoom - however my question is does anybody have experience with the new Tokina 12-24mm f4 zoom? According to reviews I have seen it seems to perform pretty well comapared to the Nikkor and of course is around half the price. They seem to be difficult to get hold of at present though. There is also the forthcoiming Sigma 10-22 zoom to consider - although I have not found a review of this one as yet.

 

Many thanks.

 

Mark Webster

D100, Titan etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just returned from a trip using a Canon mount Tokina 12-24. I like the lens a lot. My only complaint (and not necessarily applicable to UW shooting) is that it does seem to vignette with a filter that is even the slightest bit too thick (e.g. a circular polarizer).

Mike

Hello All,

An update to my last query - I went for the Tokina 12-24mm in the end and have just used it for a week or so shooting in the Red Sea and UK. It seems a very good lens and most likely sharper than my Nikkor 18-35mm (which I believe the 12-24mm Nikkor is based?). I am using it with a Hoya diopter which does vignette at 12mm slightly (never did in the 18-35mm on film, so this must be a little wider), but the simple solution to this is to file it down a few mm.

There has been another thread regarding domes and extension rings - I tend not to be too scientific about this - I have tried it with small medium and large domes, with and without a diopter, and dont see too much difference and all are reasonably sharp in the corners at 12mm. For convenience I have used it mostly with the small Subal 20mm dome, 40mm ext ring and a +4 diopter, you can get very close with this for CFWA and it is a much neater and more compact set up than a FE dome on an extension ring.

The other reason I chose this lens was the position of the zoom ring at the bottom of the lens which suits my housing (LMI Titan).

BTW - this was my first purchase on E-bay - through Kea Photo in Hong Kong who gave excellent service (www.kea-photo.com) and the lens was less than half the price of the Nikkor in the UK.

Hope that helps.

Mark Webster

www.photec.co.uk

Thanks for the report Luke.

Thank's for the reports Mark & Mike,

Can you uploads and/or links to images of the results?

Here are two images from the Tokina 12-24. Maybe not the best shots in the world but I haven't had a chance to go through all of them yet. Here's one at 24mm:

And one at 12mm:

Both taken behind a S&S 9" fisheye dome.

Mike

Mike, thanks for posting. It looks pretty good at both focal lengths to me. Would like to see some subject matter in the lower corners if you can find a shot w/ some.

Cheers

James

Arnon,

Posting pics at the moment is difficult - I am working in Angola for a while. I will try and remember to do so when I get back home.

Mark Webster

www.photec.co.uk