Canon EF14mm on 1DSmk2?

Personally, I am dissatisfied with the 16-35 zoom on the full-frame, underwater...

Can you elaborate a little on your 16-35mm concerns/issues? I've used my 1DsMkII and Seacam housing on about 70 dives so far (love it!), but mostly shooting macro (Indonesia). Thus, I have minimal experience with the 16-35mm lens at this point. However, I intend to use that lens almost exclusively on a trip next week (sharks in the Bahamas).

Any specific issues (other than soft corners at the 16mm end), tips on optimizing its performance, etc.? The only thing I've really heard is that best results are achieved several stops from wide open (e.g., at f5.6-f8). Any insights/comments would be appreciated.

The corners are totally unacceptable, and it's generally soft unless you stop down to what you specified, although I tended to try to shoot f6.3 or smaller. And even then, I much prefer images I took with primes (specifically, the Sigma 20/1.8 (bit soft around corners), Canon 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L).

The 16-35 is very versatile, though, and sometimes you gotta use it.

Eric,

How bad is unacceptable? I can't believe it can be that bad. Underwater we tend to shoot at "f6.3 or smaller" so maybe it is not so troublesome in real world shooting?

Do you have a link to some examples? Don't need to be UW.

Alex

Alex -

I'll have to dig up some examples. Don't get me wrong -- I've gotten many nice shots with that lens, but my standards keep getting higher as I strive for better images. Corners on the 16-35 are *very* soft, and this is without using a diopter. There is also horrible chromatic aberration.

With a diopter, it becomes really bad. I only put a diopter on the 16-35 one time, and I don't think I'll be able to find those images. Luckily, you don't need a diopter with the lens in a Superdome.

Here's a test Frink did on land. It doesn't look so bad, on land:

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-18mm-...anon-1ds-mk-ii/

In general the newer 17~40 Canon L lens appears to have a better reputation than the faster 16~35 But as I said previously neither will give particularly good corners underwater at shorter focal lengths than 20mm even with a Superdome (although this is probably going to give as good correction as is possible). There has been a lot of discussion of the image quality of the 16~35 vs. the 17~40 on web forums and the overwhelming consensus that I've read favours the 17~40. I have a 17~40 and I find it to be a very usable lens.

This said I've started using a 24/1.4 for wide work and have just started using it with the 500D close-up lens made by Canon. Even with a WidePort (Seacam's smaller dome) this gives good correction. I tend to use it for very close shots (where I can't light properly with a superdome) and here the corners do soften, but depending on the image I figure that this can be tolerated - to see such a shot, see the homepage of my www.underseacameras.com site - taken with the 24/1.4, 500D and WidePort and a single Seaflash 100 flash for fill-in (1/8s @ f/13 if I remember correctly). I will be looking for a 35/1.4 soon too!

Last comment on this is that with S45 Sortsfinder, these very fast lenses give a stunningly bright viewfinder image which is very useful in the less bright temperate conditions that I work in.

Thanks guys.

Corners have never been perfect with wide angle underwater. That 24/1.4L seems a good choice for lots of people. Although possibly with the Seacam Super Dome

Eric, I know you did a load of tests recently with Canon wides and seacam domes.

Alex

p.s. I like your picture very much, Paul. Fantastic light both fore- and background.

Paul Kay wrote: >...for very close shots (where I can't light properly with a superdome)...<

Even with dual strobes? Why does the superdome make lighting difficult with "very close shots"? Shouldn't lighting issues be dependent on the lens' (and strobe's) angle of view, regardless of which dome is used?

Since I already own the 16-35mm, I'm going to try to make the best of it. Sounds like I'll just have to watch the apertures (keep 'em small), and perhaps (if you'll pardon the less-than-elegant "solution") crop photos to get rid of some of those soft edges!

In response to the above discussion about the Canon 16-35, here's a link comparing the 16-35 and 17-40 that has lots of examples using both. Summarizing the conclusions: the 17-40 is better at 17, the 16-35 is better at 35, and the review claims that both are good.

Lanier

Quote "Even with dual strobes? Why does the superdome make lighting difficult with "very close shots"? Shouldn't lighting issues be dependent on the lens' (and strobe's) angle of view, regardless of which dome is used?"

If you are shooting very close to the dome it is physically not possible to place strobes where you want them! With a physically large dome and especially in lower visibility than ideal this can be a real problem. If you look at the shot of the Spider Crab that I used as an illustration, the crab was about 6 inches from the Wide Port and it was lit with a single strobe. Two problems would have occurred with the Superdome, first it would not have been possible to get the housing as low (it was on the seabed) and second, the strobe would have been obstructed by the Superdome's 'hood'. In low vis I prefer a single strobe to avoid double lighting backscatter.

A bit off topic but that's the reasoning.

There has been a lot of discussion of the 17~40 and 16~35 on the forums at www.robgalbraith.com

... it would not have been possible to get the housing as low (it was on the seabed) and second, the strobe would have been obstructed by the Superdome's 'hood'. ...

Thanks, Paul (the crab is a great shot, BTW). I haven't done much wide angle close-up photography - and none with the superdome...yet. I look forward to doing more!