First Dives with Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye

[KenByrne]

I went up to Capenwray to try out my new Tokina lens with my D70 and Ike housing. First problem I had was that when I put the camera in the housing I could quite clearly see the shade at 10mm. I removed the shade but would prefer the minor protection this gives. On quite a lot of shots I had some flare from the flash on the left side and a strange curved line which is caused by the flash reflecting off something or refracting through the edge of the port. If it's the latter then trimming the shade and replacing it should help.

At 17mm and F8 the corners seem reasonable sharp.





This shot shows the flare problem. It also shows the fisheye distortion. Again shot at f8.



There's a bit of a hotspot on this one but less, I think because there's a subject on the left.


Finally a couple of available light shots. In each case I had to dial in about -1.5 exposure compensation to stop the top of the picture burning out. It was a dark day with low vis and I guess the extreme wide angle was picking up too much variation between the dark bottom and the surface light for the meter to cope.

1/45 at f3.5 no major soft corners even wide open.



1/15 at f3.5

[Cussy]

Ken
Nice shots. In short; should I buy one?

The flare you talk about, where abouts was your strobe positioned? Surely this would be the same for any ultra-wide lens in a 6inch Ike dome??

Rob

[Mike W]

Thanks, Ken - looks good. Assume this was the 5503 port? As you say, decently sharp corners, esp at f8.

I sometimes get a similar curved reflection with my Peleng and the superwide dome - I forget the number but it doesn't have a shade - and much worse flare in the corners underwater than above. I assume as well that it's the lack of a shade and the effect of the port, I'm intending to modify an extra shade I've got and see if it makes any difference.

Oh - and on one or two shots I've got what is clearly a reflection of the toothed zoom collar.

I also struggle with the contrast between surface and subject and usually end up using the meter with -1 stop of underexposure and the selective metering option enabled.

[KenByrne]

Rob, From what I've seen so far I'm very pleased with this lens. I wish it had a filter holder so that I could have a play with the magic filter but you can't have everything. I've seen great shots from the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye but I like the flexibility of the zoom. I reckon getting shots of the trout would have been near impossible with a 10.5mm because it's so wide. I don't think you'd be disappointed if you bought this lens.

Mark, It was the 5503 dome port. Interesting to know that I'm not alone seeing this sort of problem.

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.

[Mike W]

Looked back at my fisheye shots and the 'flare' - my Canon has a bright chrome ring where the lens mounts, and I think the internal reflection I sometimes get might be this, so made up a trademarked and patent protected baffle plate available exclusively from me at only £49.99 if you want one (It's actually a bit of black cardboard) - to try next week.

[TimIngmire]

I have found using the 10.5 and strobe that for CFWA work, the strobe is best placed very close to the housing pointing outwards and get very little or no backscatter. Trying to light across the whole frame is very difficult to do.

These results look good tho Ken and certainly more flexible than the 10.5.

Would it not be possible to tape a rear filter in position?

[KenByrne]

I don't think I'd risk taping a rear filter on but I might be tempted to try taping a filter to the front.

[jarhed]

Great shots, I am quite interested in the lens, would you go for the Tokina 10-17 or the Nikon 12-24 if you only had one lens and cost wasn't an issue?

I already have the Nikon 16mm for WA and am looking for a little more flexability.

I tend to shoot both Green Water and tropical (vacation!!!)

Thanks,
John

[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.

[jarhed]

Originally Posted by Cussy

John

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.

I haven't taken a serious look at the Sigma yet, I had generally decided on the 12-24mm and set aside funds to buy, then came along all the excitement on the Tokina. So I have to re-evaluate my choices now.

Look forward to your blue water pics,I think that I would like the 10.5mm in my tool kit, I am very happy with my 16mm and generally wish for a bit more length for the occasional reef shark. will the Tokina offer this at 17mm this is the primary reason I was looking hard at the 12-24, though the Sigma probably deserves a harder look than I gave it.

Thanks,
John