Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 10-17mm vs 10-17mm+1.4x for north atlantic
Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums > Gear Lust > Digital SLRs/Housings
scottleslie
My first post here. I am wondering how the usefulness of the 10-17mm with and without the 1.4x TC compares for close-up wide-angle, specifically for the kind of conditions found in the Atlantic off Maine or Mass. - fairly poor viz and smaller wildlife (I live on the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia- here's a link to my book: http://www.amazon.com/Bay-Fundy-Portrait-S...8892&sr=8-1 . I've been doing this u/w stuff for a while, but am new to digital (7d with Ikelite) and particularly the 10-17. The reason I ask is that I'm ready to make a mini-dome for the Ikelite for wide angle macro and will only make one at first, so I need to know whether to make it for the 10-17mm w or w/o the TC. I have a kenko 300. Any help would be much appreciated! By the way, this whole Wet Pixel site is awesome.
Viz'art
QUOTE (scottleslie @ Dec 8 2010, 01:59 PM) *
My first post here. I am wondering how the usefulness of the 10-17mm with and without the 1.4x TC compares for close-up wide-angle, specifically for the kind of conditions found in the Atlantic off Maine or Mass. - fairly poor viz and smaller wildlife (I live on the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia- here's a link to my book: http://www.amazon.com/Bay-Fundy-Portrait-S...8892&sr=8-1 . I've been doing this u/w stuff for a while, but am new to digital (7d with Ikelite) and particularly the 10-17. The reason I ask is that I'm ready to make a mini-dome for the Ikelite for wide angle macro and will only make one at first, so I need to know whether to make it for the 10-17mm w or w/o the TC. I have a kenko 300. Any help would be much appreciated! By the way, this whole Wet Pixel site is awesome.



I would go for the 10-17mm straight, of the two set, I tend to gravitate towards straight lens in poor viz, with the TC, the aperture and focusing performance do takes a serious punch.
tdpriest
My ha'porth: Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye works very well with the 1.4x TC, but the Tokina seems fussier about dome port configuration and that might have something to do with its maximum aperture of f3.5. I have to admit that I've only tried the Tokina at the wide end because I don't have a zoom gear for the lens/TC combination.

Tim

dirol.gif


Steve Williams
I have yet to really understand the advantage of using a 1.4 in combination with the 10-17 on a cropped frame camera. I know folks have used it successfully like Gudge. But can someone explain the advantages? Maybe some pictures would help. Sorry to be so slow.

Steve

tdpriest
Steve:

This is a Nikon 10.5mm/1.4x TC image: the effect is to enlarge the foreground subject but to keep a lot of the background, creating an image halfway between a macro and a wide-angle image. It works with subjects that would come out too small without the TC:

Click to view attachment

Tim

dirol.gif
Alex_Tattersall
I took this seahorse (about 5cm tall) with the Tok and teleconvertor and Zen minidome (under licence of course). It would have been very small in the frame with the Fisheye lens alone.


scottleslie
I am actually leaning toward the lens + tc myself. The arrow crab and seahorse shots are beautiful! I find shooting anything wider than a 20mm even for straight-up wide angle up here in the Bay of Fundy just loses effect with the poor viz. So thanks everyone.


QUOTE (Alsky72 @ Dec 9 2010, 01:50 PM) *
I took this seahorse (about 5cm tall) with the Tok and teleconvertor and Zen minidome (under licence of course). It would have been very small in the frame with the Fisheye lens alone.


JimSwims
Hi Scott,

I love the forced perspective that the 10-17mm + 1.4x Teleconverter combo gives you. I was always keen to try it myself when I moved to SLR and was
very fortunate that being a Nexus housing user to have the Baré port available for me to utilise. The 10-17mm can be used behind that port with or without
a 1.4x TC with no need for an extension ring. The 1.4x TC essentially gives you a 14-24mm Fisheye.


Here's a few different uncropped shots I've taken with that set up.





Stargazer at Night.



f16, 1/200 @17mm(24mm) This was right in front of the dome and as you can see I needed to set the aperture a bit higher.










A 2.5m/8ft Banded Woobygong.



f11 1/125 @10mm(14mm). Again right up close to the dome perhaps 15cm/6" from it, in misty vis.










Potbelly Seahorse.



f18 1/160 @17mm(24mm) Taken on a night dive



I'm sure you'll be happy using it too and if you do Enjoy!


Cheers,
Jim.
Timmoranuk
In my home waters (UK) there are infrequent opportunities to use the scope of the 10-17 on its own, save perhaps deep wreck, seal and basking shark expeditions or very shallow, natural light opportunities. Otherwise if I'm looking for the wider angle perspective in our generally reduced visibility this side of the Atlantic I'll fit the 1.4 behind the Tokina, use a mini dome and sit inches from the subject.

But I'd summarise my use of the 10-17 with or without the TC as a love / hate relationship. Whereas I'm happy to confine myself to either macro or w/a in tropical waters and forgo some shots which present as my mindset is in either macro or w/a mode, the 10-17 / TC combo is, for me a frustrating one as there always seem to be great shots missed because of the presence or absence of the TC and mini dome...

Buy it, use it with a mini dome, get some great shots and miss a few too ;-)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.