Lens for a new Nikon D800

[PatW]

I would not go with the Tokina 10-17 fisheye. I have it and like it with my Nikon D7000. But my Nikon D7000 has the small DX sensor. The D800 is a full frame sensor which is about twice the size of the D7000 sensor. Why would you want to get a full frame camera and then shoot it with a DX lens? Why not just go with a much less expensive DX camera in the first place?

I use a Nauticam housing. I checked their port chart. They can accomodate the Nikon 16 mm 2.8 fisheye and the Nikon 16-35 lens. That was it for full frame wide angle lenses in the Nikon line up.

From what I have read, 36 megapixels on a full frame sensor is pushing things about as far as you can get with a sensor of that size. According to Digital Photography Review, you only achieve the resolution the camera is capable of by using the very best optics possible. I think that means using only high quality Nikon glass.

The thing you need to do in your lens selection is to decide on the kind of housing you will use. You then have to find out what lenses you can use with the ports that are available. You can buy a lens and it will not work, no matter how good the lens is, if there is no port that will work with your housing for it.

Now with Nauticam, there are port adapters to use other manufacturer's ports with that housing. I am not suggesting that you get Nauticam, although I have one and am very pleased with it. I am merely using it as an example.

I have the Tokina 10-17 fisheye. I like the fisheye. I don't mind the warping the lens gives to the images. It even works very well for candid apres dive photos of divers acting goofy. The curved lines emphasize the divers and give the photo a kind of goofy look that goes with the vibe after a dive. The Nikon 16 mm fisheye would be similar.

I also have the Tokina 17-70 which is a DX lens. The 16-35 Nikon would work pretty much the same but wide at the wide end and a bit shorter at the long end (DX sensors multiply the focal length about 1.5 over full frame). You would have a decent wide to mid range zoom with that lens.

As I said, I would check and double check any lens you think of getting to be sure that the ports, focus gears and so on will work with the housing you will have.

Also

 

[JackConnick]

A few thoughts:

The D600 is a great value. It has most of the D800 in a slightly smaller body. I can't see that the AF is that much slower, just less focus points, which is meaningless uw. 24 vs 36 MP? Gees, what do you really need? But the biggest difference I found was the controls. The D800 has the same controls and more that the D200/D300 had. I really missed the dedicated AF lock for instance on my D7000. My take: if you're trading up from a D90/D7000 series you won't miss them. If you're moving up from a D300, you probably will. The size and weight is less on the D600, but negligible. I wanted to save the $1000 betweent he two and took and D600 home for the weekend, but ended up trading it back in for a D800. Remember, the cost to housing them is pretty close, maybe only $300 less on the D600 - ports, strobes, etc. are going to be the same. But it does all add up in the end...

The Sigma 15mm FE seems to be the W/A lens of choice, with some preferring the Nikon 16FE. Using either of them with a Kenko 1.4TC works well for a rectilinear 21mm.

I was quite disappointed with the much-ballyhooed 16-35 UW or in any kind of low light. Nice lens, but f/4-5.6 is just too slow, and it's a $1350 solution. Not so sure the 17-35 is that much better and is even more expensive.

I am pretty excited about Tokina's 16-28mm f/2.8 for ~$850. Not the zoom FE we've been wanting, but should work out well UW.

Jack

 

[GRH]

A few thoughts:


I was quite disappointed with the much-ballyhooed 16-35 UW or in any kind of low light. Nice lens, but f/4-5.6 is just too slow, and it's a $1350 solution. Not so sure the 17-35 is that much better and is even more expensive.



Jack

Jack, I have read a couple of your posts regarding this lens and am curious why your opinion is different than the majority that seem very happy with this lens.

You mention f/4-5.6 while published specs list this lens at a fixed f4 aperture. Does the actual aperture vary with focal range? Unless shooting without strobes, I don’t see 1 less stop making all that much difference. Reports of focus speed have been more than satisfactory.

I own the 14-24 f/2.8 and haven’t tested it yet. The 14-24 is a fantastic lens topside but most UW reviews prefer the 16-35. I have wondered what the real world difference is for the pixel peeping complaints of corner sharpness. Not being able to use diopters might be an issue for some. I would typically crop the image a little anyway and hope the viewer’s eye is drawn to my composed primary subject and not the corners. Thanks.

 

[Warren_L]

I have tried the 14-24mm f/2.8 underwater. The main issues are as you describe - lack of ability to front mount diopters, which results in some pretty significant loss in sharpness in the corners. Even cropping a little bit only helps a little, plus that kind of defeats the purpose of having that wide of a lens to begin with. If you stop the lens down to about f/8 it starts to improve, but it was never to the point that I was completely satisfied with it. I went with the Aquatica 9.25" megadome (since the front of the lens with the permanently fixed lens hood would not fit through the port opening). Even with the larger diameter port, it was not enough to fix the corner issues. I love the lens topside, but unfortunately for me, it fell short in it's abilities for underwater use. All my wide angle work is done with the sigma 15mm fisheye. I much prefer this over the Nikon 16mm fisheye, which I bought originally and used for only one season before selling it and getting the sigma.