The new Nikkor 12-24 Zoom Lens
By Stephen Frink
On a recent trip to Africa I had my first opportunity to try Nikon’s new 12-24mm zoom lens on my D1X digital SLR.
As it is designed to enhance the wide-angle coverage of D-SLR cameras, I knew it should have utility for underwater photography, and my first images of white sharks in South Africa confirmed it would be a powerful tool.
Yet it was a recent editorial assignment in the Bahamas that assured me this lens will be the "go-to" lens for so many underwater and topside imaging opportunities. I used the 12-24mm in a Seacam housing for the D1X with a 9" Superdome and a PVL35 port extension, and found the lens to have extraordinary optical performance.
This particular port combination provided excellent resolution, even in the corners at F-5.6, and the zoom range covered subjects from wide "diver" shots to portraits of medium sized fish. The close-focus capability made a diopter unnecessary for virtual image correction. In my opinion, this lens should be standard equipment for anyone shooting a housed Nikon digital SLR.
See the following slide show to get a sense of the versatility of this lens for dive photojournalism.
[ Click here for a slideshow ]
August 2006 update
OK… these were my words after my first editorial assignment using the Nikkor 12-24 on a D1X, and have resided on my website ever since. Yet, lens testing remains a "moving target", and now that higher resolution cameras like the D200 and D2X are out there, the issues with the 12-24 zoom are more apparent and subsequent testing suggests different conclusions:
First of all, I am positive a diopter does enhance close focus capability. No surprise there, as that's what they are designed to do. But, that comes at a cost, including the possibility of chromatic aberration, and for sure loss of wide-angle coverage and definition in the distance (as would be seen with a diver in the distance beyond a colorful/focused foreground).
I don't shoot Nikon these days, but many of my results with the Canon zooms at http://www.seacamusa.com/lens-testing.shtml speak to this same issue. Plus, in my photo seminars, http://www.waterhousetours.com/instruction, I have been providing diopters for the 12-24 Nikkor shooters in the class so they can form their own opinions. Extensive testing reflects that diopters are a tool, to be used as conditions warrant. If any lens focuses beyond the dome’s virtual image, a diopter will be required, but with close focusing wide angle zooms like the 12-24 Nikkor and 17-40 Canon, diopters are optional and should be used as a creative tool.
If I’m in Fiji, shooting soft corals and anthias fairly tight, I use a diopter. If I am on the same coral head but shooting diver silhouettes behind that same colorful coral reef, I prefer no diopter. In broad terms, if I am working with models I go without diopter. If it is a critter dive, I may use diopter.
The other thing I came to discover is that the 12-24 Nikkor isn't great topside at F-5.6 and even F-8. Wide apertures reveal poor corner performance topside, and no dome is going to correct that. Same with the 17-40 Canon I use, and their 16-35 is even worse. I try to work at F-8 and smaller with these lenses, and have come to the conclusion that kicking up the ISO is a lesser evil than the horrible corner performance. If I can't get to F-8 at ISO 100, I'd rather be working at ISO 200. Hopefully, the next generation of digital cameras will be even better at performing at higher ISOs. With higher resolution and better noise performance I suspect my default ISO for wide-angle will likely be 200, keeping to 100 for the better performing macro lenses. Unless of course, better zoom lenses are introduced at the same time.
Wide zooms will always be a problem because the lenses move through the zoom range, shifting the nodal point. But, if the dome and port extension is calculated to be optimal at the wide end of the zoom range, all else will fall into place because the offending corners are cropped out. This is what we should strive for!
[ Top ]
|
