Nikon 17-35

I guess I should weigh in on the 17-35. With the Fuji S2, I relied mainly on 12-24 mm and 10.5 for wide-angle underwater, and used the l17-35 mainly for subjects too shy to approach closely with the wider lenses, such as sharks.

With the D2X, however, I believe I can see a perceptible difference in the quality of images (sharpness, color punch) between the 12-24 and 17-35 zooms even with the reduced frame format. I suppose it's possible that I could be imaging this. I haven't figured out a good way to test it, but the perception that the 17-35 is producing better images is powerful enough for me that I don't think I'll bother.

So on my first liveaboard outing using the D2X, I ended up using the 17-35 mm a lot more underwater than I ever had before. Admittedly the wide end isn't that wide, but with reasonable viz this lens can take lovely wide angle shots. It is also clearly superior for subjects that can't be approached closely, shooting at the longer end of the lens through a dome .

I purchased my 17-35 about five years ago for use with a full-frame film SLR, and a surprising proportion of my best (in my view) topside photos have been taken with it. honestly don't know if I'd purchase such an expensive lens again ow, but I do know that I'm using this lens a lot more now (above and under water) with the D2X than I ever did when I was shooting the S2. And I certainly don't want to sell it.

Frogfish

Robert-

Thanks for posting that info. Do you have any of the 17-35 photos on your website? I saw a alot taken taken with the 12-24 from Indonesia..

Does anyone feel the 17-55x would be BETTER than the 17-35?

M.

Starbuck,

I don't have anything taken with the D2X on my website, or anything less than a year old for that matter. But I've been working on reorganizing images these past couple of weeks, so I hope that may change.

But here's an underwater shot from R4 taken with the 17-35 mm that I liked, and that I don't think I could have taken with the 12-24, certainly not with the 10.5. This was shot under a table coral (which is partly visible), at the long (35) end of the lens. The equivalent focal length for a full-frame camera would be about 50 mm. I've never used the 17-55 above water or under, but as far as shooting underwater through a dome, I don't see much point in trying to go much longer than this.

Exposure was 1/80 at f/3.2, twin inon strobes. ACR color temp was 8100 K (tint +80), no exposure adjustment in ACR.

Compressing this image into a small jpeg doesn't really show what I like most about the shot, so I've made a quick blow up of a piece of the original raw file, with just a quick curve and some sharpeningl, which I'll probably have to attach to a second post.

Frogfish

Here's the blow-up of previous image. It's very obvious here that the focus locked onto the Polycarpa aurata ascidians - the mouth and eye of the main subject semicircular angel are quite soft.

Frogfish

Robert-

Thanks for posting that image...the colors are very nice. I think Im going to just bite the bullet and buy the 17-35 for an upcoming trip to Guadalupe.

M.

This lens is worth every penny. It's was my go to lens for large stuff in my month long Indonesia voyage as well as close focus wide angle work and as the lens of choice for shark shooting in Guadalupe . Super fast and sharp- at least on my nik f/5's film cameras- Mark