First Dives with Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye

[Mike W]

FWIW the 10-20 Sigma and 12-24 Nikon are both rectiliner and have a field of view of 100 to 110 degrees. The Tokina is advertised as (And the samples I've seen look like) a proper fisheye, giving 180 degress corner to corner (At least on a Nikon 1.5 crop sensor, it'll be a bit less on the slightly smaller Canon 1.6 crop sensor).

The difference is, if you photograph a square with the Sigma or Nikon you'll get a square. If you shoot it with the fisheye it'll appear like a barrel, with the edges of the square bowed outward. The effect is more noticable at 10mm than 17mm, but it's still there.

Personally, I don't think either can do the job of the other, and both have pros and cons, but after having had a (Much cheaper) fisheye for a year I've decided to replace it with a Tokina and not add a 10-20 Sigma. The final decider for me was that the Tokina at 17mm can be processed in software to give a rectilinear image equivalent to something like a 12/14mmm lens, and still has that lovely 10mm fisheye end to the zoom.

[KenByrne]

Having the Nikon 12-24 and the Tokina 10-17 if I had to choose 1 for underwater use I'd choose the Tokina. I don't think the 12-24 will get much more use underwater but I still love it for landscapes and cityscapes when I prefer the rectilinear view to the fisheye.

[GLOC]

Hope you don't mind if I join in this discussion

I recently upgraded my Oly5050 kit to a Fuji S2 within an Aquatica Housing with 8" port. The main lens I have used is the Sigma 10-20 and have recently added 2 x Ikelite SS200 strobes to the rig.

Here are some shots from the 10-20 in Chepstow taken at the end of last month. Nearly all the shots were taken wide open, and the majority were taken at 10mm.







The biggest problem I find is, as Tim alluded to, is making sure that the strobes don't burn out the foreground when you are less than 1m from your subject

More images to come using this lens as I continue to practice with it...

[Trevor Rees]

No one here has mentioned if they use a port extension ring with this lens. I'm guessing not.

I've posted on Wetpixel, asking the same question. It seems that some of the Subal users are now favouring a 15mm ring.

A couple of friends are using the DX-D200 with no ring. They are not aware of optical problems but equally they have no idea if results would be better with a ring.

One possible issue is that compared to the 10.5 Nikkor the 10-17 Tokina is only about 8mm longer. The smallest Sea & Sea ring is about 19mm which may cause vignetting with some systems.

Any thoughts?

[Cussy]

Trevor,
Mine is an Ikelite setup, so I'm using what they suggested. Jim Drake said something about very weird optical problems if a ring isn't used with the Sea & Sea set-up. Do you know his contact details?
Rob

[MartinJ]

Originally Posted by Cussy

John
After talking to Ken I also bought the Tokina lens. I've only dived with it once so far, but I am very impressed with it. All of the photos I posted earlier in the week from the Stoney Cove Splash-in were taken with it - these were a bit dark due to user error (not the lens, the camera)!! I would say that 17 is still very wide, but the extra 2mm to 10 makes quite a difference, especially in the green when you have to get close to very big things. The photo I took of the helicopter on Saturday would have not been properly illuminated any further away than I took it, so I needed the 10mm for that. Once we came shallow I would have liked more length, but changing to 17 gave a few good shots of the fish.

I have shot a lot of photos top side with the lens at 10mm. I was invited the other week to fly in a simulator, and the photos I managed would not have been possible without such a wide lens.

Build quality is excellent and the image seems sharp in all corners. As its a fisheye if you get people at the edges of the image they tend to look very flat, but thats just optics and I'm sure other FE lenses would do the same.

Have you considered the Sigma 10-20? [this wasn't an option for me in an Ikelite housing - no zoom underwater]

I wish money was no object for me.....

Rob

PS I will be using the lens a lot next week in the Red Sea, so I'll let you know what the results are like in the blue.

Rob,

We exchanged messages on YD and am on here now also! Got the Tokina 10-17 but not yet used it in the water...babtism by fire next week with it in Malta. Took the 50mm + 12mm extension tubes out down to Chesil on Sunday and got some cracking cutttlefish shots though.

Interesting to note you say the Sigma 10-20 was not an option due to no -zoom...got one here today and a second ikelite zoom ring for it having read people have used it in the 5503.50 port.

Have got the zoom ring on ok (bit of a struggle but finally worked out how to get it on and off easily*) and looks fine...just got to pop it in the housing and put the port on top of it but all looks fine so should have 10-20 rectilinear with zoom also now.

Will let you know how I get on...won't be using this one till Malta either!

Martin


* had to slip on the clear toothed ring first from the rear of the lens, the put the black zoom clamp on (5509.28 then squish down the springs slightly (just mild thumb pressure), then slide the clear zoom collar down onto the black locator, then assemble in housing.

It is FAR easier to slide the clear collar down the lens first then up onto the black zoom ring than fit the black ring first. I found it impossible to get the clear collar over it if I fitted it first. I think it is because the toothed section provides a bit more rigidity for sliding it over the springs...it seems its only the springs that are actually making it a tight fit so thought about replacing the springs if need be but I don't forsee any problems...will let you know

[MartinJ]

Originally Posted by MartinJ

Rob,

We exchanged messages on YD and am on here now also! Got the Tokina 10-17 but not yet used it in the water...babtism by fire next week with it in Malta. Took the 50mm + 12mm extension tubes out down to Chesil on Sunday and got some cracking cutttlefish shots though.

Interesting to note you say the Sigma 10-20 was not an option due to no -zoom...got one here today and a second ikelite zoom ring for it having read people have used it in the 5503.50 port.

Have got the zoom ring on ok (bit of a struggle but finally worked out how to get it on and off easily*) and looks fine...just got to pop it in the housing and put the port on top of it but all looks fine so should have 10-20 rectilinear with zoom also now.

Will let you know how I get on...won't be using this one till Malta either!

Martin


* had to slip on the clear toothed ring first from the rear of the lens, the put the black zoom clamp on (5509.28 then squish down the springs slightly (just mild thumb pressure), then slide the clear zoom collar down onto the black locator, then assemble in housing.

It is FAR easier to slide the clear collar down the lens first then up onto the black zoom ring than fit the black ring first. I found it impossible to get the clear collar over it if I fitted it first. I think it is because the toothed section provides a bit more rigidity for sliding it over the springs...it seems its only the springs that are actually making it a tight fit so thought about replacing the springs if need be but I don't forsee any problems...will let you know

Well,

Put it all together in the housing and all seemed fine, no vignetting so long as you get the port shade alignment correct above water. Just got to see how it goes underwater

Martin

[GLOC]

Originally Posted by Trevor Rees

No one here has mentioned if they use a port extension ring with this lens. I'm guessing not.

I've posted on Wetpixel, asking the same question. It seems that some of the Subal users are now favouring a 15mm ring.

A couple of friends are using the DX-D200 with no ring. They are not aware of optical problems but equally they have no idea if results would be better with a ring.

One possible issue is that compared to the 10.5 Nikkor the 10-17 Tokina is only about 8mm longer. The smallest Sea & Sea ring is about 19mm which may cause vignetting with some systems.

Any thoughts?

I have used the Sigma 10-20 on my S2 Aquatica and there is serious vignetting if the domeshade is present. As most of my work is deep wreck biased with stages and hardboats, I do like to have the shade there give some additional protection.

I have meaning to assess what the difference in quality is with and without the extension tube which Aquatica recommends but haven't had time yet. I am due out to the Red Sea in a fortnight or so, so will try again.

Regards

[ChristianG]

Originally Posted by KenByrne

I thought I had the flash far enough back not to be a problem but I didn't get the same thing on my second dive so I guess it is just down to strobe positioning. I think I may need to point the strobes outwards rather than straight ahead. I may also need to look at changing my second strobe (A YS30 on slave) to a wired strobe or see if I can get some fibre optic cable to join the two strobes. I don't think the YS30 was firing onevry shot.

Digitals are very susceptible to flare and proper positioning of the strobe/s is what it's all about. As well, flare can't be repaired in something like Photoshop. You get flare, you need to crop that part of the pic.

If you look carefully at my Avatar or go to my pics on Saeed's site where you can see that one much more clearly you'll see that my strobes actually cross, from an extreme angle out. This is fine in the clear waters of the Solomons where I shot PAST where they crossed because they then edged at each end of the pic but clearly not in more turbid waters.

I have found, in the latter, that the best method is to try to get the edge of each beam to "just overlap in the middle". Of course the more powerful your strobes, the longer (can be) your arms, the less backscatter and associated problems.

[KenByrne]

Someone asked for pictures of my port shade modifications so here they are alongside an unmodified shade, not a pretty sight.