Optical quality of Nikon 10.5 vs 14 mm lens?
- Thread starter Christian
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
RonFrank
Contributor
Christian:
Then IMO don't bother with the 14mm. The 10.5mm provides a much wider field of view. IMO you may not want to have only a 10.5mm when shooting sharks as you are going to have to have your camera down their throat to get a shot.
Also the 10.5 maybe a bit too wide, and will give a more distorted perspective with a 180degree field of view.
Christian:
Like any zoom, there are going to be more elements in a zoom than in a prime lens, and there may be some differences in sharpness of the lens, but I've been more than pleased with the quality of shots I've been getting with the 12-24 that I don't know if I'd be able to see any appreciable difference between the two lenses (not having used the 14mm). The biggest difference is probably in the f/stops. With zooms, you typically lose a stop or two compared to a prime. It will be easier to get more ambient light with a lens with a lower stop. But like anything, it's a tradeoff. Personally, I really like the flexibility of the zoom, as the sacrifice in f/stop is not a big deal to me.
Christian:
Depending on the sharks. 10.5mm would be great if you get 5-8m whale sharks but it is way too wide for regular sharks. Most people will use either 12-24mm DX, 17-35mm or 17-55mm DX. Recently I shot some grey reefsharks which were a little over a meter long to 1.5m and I found 12-24mm at 24mm end still a bit too wide unless the shark got very close to me. Ideally for that dive, 17-55mm DX would have been ideal. 12-24mm would be better for shark schooling or larger 2-3m sharks, I would think unless you can get within arm lenght of one which generally is easier said than done. I think 14mm would also be too wide for most shots as well. 18-35mm might be a good alternative cheaper lens to use. Behind a domeport, you will end up using around F8-F11 to get the entire virtual image in focus so the difference between a F2.8 lens and F4 lens will not be as dramatic as when the lens is wide open.
This one, the shark was about 2 arm lengths away, shooting at 24mm with 12-24mm DX.
This one, the shark was may be around 1.5 arm lenght over me. Again at 24mm end of 12-24mm DX.
Nice pictures. Where did you shoot them?
I have used a 16 mm lens and a 20 mm lens with a 35mm camera for this exact pupose, and the 20 mm was just about perfect. Sometimes I used a 16 mm which was a bit too wide for most shots. So I'm pretty sure the 14 mm would be perfect. But the question remains if it can produce sharper/better images than a 12-24?
These are all taken with a 35 mm MMIIEX (sold). The hammer and the whaleshark (unfortunatelly) with the 20. The grey reef shark (almost bumped the lens, its snout is actually out of focus because it came too close) and the cudas with the 16. I'm getting a D200 now.
I have used a 16 mm lens and a 20 mm lens with a 35mm camera for this exact pupose, and the 20 mm was just about perfect. Sometimes I used a 16 mm which was a bit too wide for most shots. So I'm pretty sure the 14 mm would be perfect. But the question remains if it can produce sharper/better images than a 12-24?
These are all taken with a 35 mm MMIIEX (sold). The hammer and the whaleshark (unfortunatelly) with the 20. The grey reef shark (almost bumped the lens, its snout is actually out of focus because it came too close) and the cudas with the 16. I'm getting a D200 now.
Agree with others IMHO the 10.5 is to wide for most shark shots, I did not even use it on our Guadalupe trip. 12-24 good option, if you can get close or have a chance to get 2-3 animals in the frame but the lens I seem to use the most is the 17-35. Sharks, you don't have to be right on top of to fill the frame and you can get decent fish profiles. Here are a couple of examples.
Christian:
12-24mm is pretty good although at wide open, I don't think it will be quite as good as 14mm or even close to 17-35mm on 35mm sensor. However, once you step down to F8, the difference will be much much less noticeable.
PS I took the grey reef shark shots in Yap last month.
Hidroj
Registered
Hy, any report about the 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-Nikkor? It's also a Fisheye, but still usable with the old Nikon cameras. What happens if you attach it to a digital one? Do you have then a 24mm Fisheye? And wich effecte does that have? Great differences to the digital 10,5mm?
I would prefer to go on buying lenses that are adaptable to my old Nikon, who knows if Nikon someday decides to rectify their decision and we get back the traditional focal lenghts....
Thank's very much!
Hidroj
I would prefer to go on buying lenses that are adaptable to my old Nikon, who knows if Nikon someday decides to rectify their decision and we get back the traditional focal lenghts....
Thank's very much!
Hidroj
Hidroj:
The 16mm focal length on a Nikon SLR or a Nikon dSLR is still 16mm. The difference is the crop factor as with the dSLR, a smaller part of the image from the lens is captured on the sensor compared to the SLR on 35mm frame. This results in a viewing angle that is comparable to a 24mm lens on the SLR.
Similar threads
