Wide angle SLR

[smb2]

I have used a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye for years.
The newer (faster) non fisheye 11-16mm f2.8 looks like an interesting lens for a Dx body DSLR, for UW shooting.
Anybody have any experience/feedback for this Tokina lens?

[bvanant]

It is a very interesting lens for shooting wrecks and such since it is rectilinear. I am not sure that the extra stop is worth much underwater since DOF control is not really an issue with such a wide lens and getting more light in your frame is easily done with ISO adjustment. That being said, the IQ from the lens is quite nice and the new 9-blade iris should make for some cool looking bokeh.
Bill

[smb2]

Thanks Bill.
I am going to shoot Whale Sharks this summer, all from the surface.
I will be using a Nikon D2xs and was just curious about a rectilinear lens vs. the fisheye. Also as the 10-17mm is getting a to be an "older" lens, I was starting to look at what was new and different. There is always the Nikon 10-24 f4 but there is a $300 difference. They weigh the same and look to be of fairly equal build. Neither would get much surface use so price is an issue in that it would be nice to spend less if I can get the same or better results (photographer not with standing.)

[bvanant]

For shooting from the surface, the rectilinear will be a lot more useful than the 10-17. The Nikon (from what I have seen) is quite nice but probably not terribly much better than the Tokina.
Cheers
Bill

[smb2]

OK Bill lets take it one step further. How about the:
Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM.

A rectilinear lens, this is some what longer in dimensions and may be difficult to match up with my 8" Aquatica dome. But may work with a "mini" dome?
I have an Fx camera for land work so I am looking strictly for UW photography.

[scottg]

for wide-angle you want a lens that focuses close, because of dome port optics. the nikon 10-24mm and sigma 8-16mm both focus close, the tokina 11-16mm not so much.

I took the sigma 8-16mm underwater and got some pretty sharp corners, and I've also seen great results from the nikon 10-24mm. I'd think about spending the extra money on the 10-24mm, you could also use it for sharks, dolphins, and other pelagics.

[Vizart]

The 8-16mm would definitely benefit from a larger dome port, the smaller one are bound to give you poor corner quality, it will fit in the dome port, I just need to get a lens for calibration purpose both for the zoom gear dimension and for the extension dimension. all this being said, I tend to go with Scott on the Nikon 10-24mm, better closer capabillity and more apropriate for large animal, the extra 8mm gain from 16mm to 24mm will come handy, all the more so since you have the 10-17mm Tokina already.

The 11-16mm is supported for the D2x, but does not have a huge fan base for underwaterphotography, the best seller in this area are, in order of poularity, are the Sigma 10-20mm, the Nikon 10-24mm and the Tokina 12-24mm, I know this by the amount of zoom gear being sold

[smb2]

Sorry I lost track of this post for a while
Thanks for all the input.
Jean, in looking at your response, the Sigma 10-20 has the closest focusing
distance at 9.4" compared to the other two (Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 10-24)
which are both rated at 11.8"
In terms of price the Sigma is ~ $250 less than Nikon and $250 more than Tokina.
So Scott, Bill does that close focus capability and cost, plus image quality
(I have no knowledge of the latter) make the Sigma a reasonable choice?
I wouldn't mind saving the $250 but I might not do another Whale Shark trip !!! Again the lens will be just for the D2xs which stays in the housing.
Thanks again everybody.

[merg]

Anyone have a view on 10-17 + 1.4tc vs the above rectilinear options?
Specifically i have the 10-17 + 1.4 and considering getting a 10-24dx , waste of money? I havent used the 10-17+1.4 enough, bit have a shark feed dive coming up and thinking if i need rectilinear option