Sigma 15-30 3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical Lens

James,

I noticed you sold your Sigma 15-30mm lens, did you ever try it underwater? Seems like that lens would have been a handy zoom lens for underwater use.

That's about 22mm - 48mm lens on a DSLR, it's much cheaper than the 14 and it's reviews are not bad. I do hear it's huge, but so is the 14mm. Tell me what you think..

It has all the disadvantages of the 14mm and no "plusses" for underwater use IMO.

The front element sticks out a lot, like the 14mm. The front element also moves a fair bit when you zoom, so I'm guessing you'll get soft corners at one end of the zoom (does that make sense???). The diameter of the lens makes it too big for Ike's housing, and with a zoom gear on there it will be gi-normous.

I traded mine for the Nikkor 18-35 ED

Why don't you get the 16-35 that Eric has instead? It's supposed to be a great lens.

Cheers

James

Why don't you get the 16-35 that Eric has instead?

Canon 16-35 --> $1399

Sigma 15-30 --> $549

That's why all us Canon people are trying to find alternate lenses than the arguably great 16-35. Ok, so maybe that's just MY reason...

Tom

Why the fascination with a super-wide zoom for underwater? I bought a Canon 20-35 USM to use underwater with my A2 but found I almost always left it at 20mm. Also, I was using a dipoter with the zoom anyway so it wasn't like all the glass in the optical chain was expensive anymore. I guess the zoom does give you a bit more flexibility, however I'm not sure it is worth the trouble sometimes for u/w use. Just curious . . .

Mike

16-35 is a great lens if you get a good one. It's to costly to risk buying a bad one on ebay so you are locke dinto paying retail 1400 or more. Both lenses are huge and the sigma is Wider and much cheaper. I need a wide zoom lens for land shots and I don't really want to buy both the 14mm and the 15-30. I can however buy both of them for cheaper than I can get the 16-35. The simga 15-30 does fit in the UK Germany housing. I was hoping you had tryed the lens underwater.

Canon 16-35 -->$1399

Sigma 15-30 --> $475

Simga 14 -->$650

Why the fascination with a super-wide zoom for underwater?  I bought a Canon 20-35 USM to use underwater with my A2 but found I almost always left it at 20mm.

Well, it's nearly impossible for us to get to 20mm, anyway, since we have that stupid 1.6x-effective multiplier to deal with. I might be inclined to use a super-wide zoom just so I can use a diopter on the front. Neither the 14mm sigma nor the 15mm full-frame fisheye are flat in the front.

I might be inclined to use a super-wide zoom just so I can use a diopter on the front. Neither the 14mm sigma nor the 15mm full-frame fisheye are flat in the front.

Actually, the only reason the zoom lenses need the diopter is that, in most cases, their minimum focus distance isn't close enough to allow them to focus on the dome's virtual image w/o a diopter. Wide angle prime lenses usually focus close enough so that it isn't a problem. So, why would you want to put a diopter on your 14mm lens?

I think Eric wants to "flatten" the front of his lens to help prevent flare.

I know I do.

Cheers

James

Before I discovered that it wouldn't go in Ike's house, I was very interested in the AF-S 17-35. The silent wave is so incredibly fast and quiet. Also it focuses to 1' and yields a 1:4.6, which may be improved with the required diopter. It shoots 79 degrees on a D100 which is about the same as a 20mm Nikonos UW. IMO that's respectable for wide angle and some closeups. Also the lens has a reputation for excellent sharpness.

Oh well, I'm only dreaming since it cannot be housed in Ike for my S2.

I own the Nikkor 18-35 AF ED and it works in the Ike housing w/ a +4 diopter. It's a pretty nice lens - check the UW-PHOTO listserv archives for this week for more commentary about the AF-S vs the ED lens.

There's also a review of the 18-35 in this e-magazine:

http://www.uwpmag.co.uk/download.htm

Cheers

James

I am going to try the lens in my UK housing but just in case it's not what I want I snagged a 14mm Sigma on ebay this week. =)

For film cameras I think the 17-35 is the finest WA lens ever made. Very close focusing (closer than listed in the Nikon specs) It is sharper than my Nikon 18 mm 2.8. With the proper set up as sharp as a Nikonos 15 lens. Still in a DSLR it's WA range is marginal. I suspect the new 12-22 will become the must have lens for UW WA photography until an affordable FF DSLR is avalible ( 5 years I am guessing)

What do you think of the optics or your 15-30? Some posts I have read rave about it and others say it is poor. Seems like the quality must vary a lot from lens to lens. :ph34r:

Iv'e been on to Uwe about flare hoods for these ports - derrr, Doesn't look like they will be added which makes into sun shots a PIA.

That is indeed a shame, Anyway I purchased a 15mm Canon Fisheye and a 14mm Sigma, and I really want the 15mm-30mm zoom for land shots so I paid Uwe to make the zoom gear for it. I plan to test and evaluate all three.

Anyone want to pickup the 8mm Fisheye and give that a try. =) 12mm underwater.... hmmm I think I need more strobes.