Read-only discussion
Hello all!
I am receiving my D200 next friday and I already ordered a 10.5mm and a 60mm. I would like to get a mid-range zoom such us the 17-55. I couldn´t make up my mind about any of them (17-35 vs 17-55 vs 12-24) by looking through some web pages and I would like to know how they work UW...
Thank you very much!!!
I have the 10.5,16 fisheye,12-24,60 and 105. I haven't found a way to get the image acceptably sharp in the corners using the 12-24. I'd like to know if using a +1 or +2 will improve this corner sharpness drastically or not.
I have the 10.5,16 fisheye,12-24,60 and 105. I haven't found a way to get the image acceptably sharp in the corners using the 12-24. I'd like to know if using a +1 or +2 will improve this corner sharpness drastically or not.
I have a couple of friends that want to sell the 12-24 because they are having the same problem. They tried with a D70 and +1 and +2 diopters behind a subal dome and didn´t like it...That´s one of the reasons I didn´t choose the 12-24...
I'm using the 12-24 with +3 diopter in a Hugy housing with no problems so far...
Greetings
Matetes
17mm is just not very wide. You definately will want something wider, so 12-24 or a third party equivalent is my recomendation.
I have been using the 12-24 with a subal ND2 and a 50mm extension ring and large dome port (can't remember the part number) and am very happy with it, the corners are sharp throughout the zoom. I tried a combination of extension rings and different strength diopters but they all made the corners blur, but just the 50mm extension was great, also I can close focus almost touching the port. When I first got it I thought what a mistake, now, great I love it.
Its all depend what you are going to shot and what you like.
I personally have the 10.5 and love it. I don't feel I need more extreme WA lens for now since for the really WA objects I'm almost always can get close as I want.
I also have the 60 and find it great for macro and for some fish portrait, what I'm missing is a mid range between this two lens for big fishes/objects so my choice will be one of the 17-XX lens.
I have a couple of friends that want to sell the 12-24 because they are having the same problem. They tried with a D70 and +1 and +2 diopters behind a subal dome and didn´t like it...That´s one of the reasons I didn´t choose the 12-24...
What size dome port are you using it behind? I have never got acceptably sharp pictures with any lens with a dioptre behind a small port (on film or digital). I now use the a 12-24 with plus 2 dioptre behind a large Subal dome and it seems sharp enough (when the dome doesn't fall off!) - but I like to use f./5.6 or smaller and that must help.
My biggest problem is looking for optical quality water!
I have been using my 18 - 35 for a few months now to shoot fish portraits. I have been surprised by how much use i get out of my "old" film wideangle lens. It has become one of my favourite lenses 
I find the 10.5 is really wide and IMHO widest is not always best!
I really like it as I can get up close (important in chunky vis) and have a full frame of a 40cm-ish or bigger subject.
I have been using the 17-35 and think it is a great all around lens. That said I just sold it and bought the new 17-55. I have not had a chance to put it in a housing yet, waiting for my Aquatica D200 housing. But I have played with it on dry land on my new D200 and think it will be an excellent all-purpose lens underwater. It does not shoot true macro but it will give you a decent shot of a “larger†nudibranch or ghost pipefish. Maybe I will do some comparison shots and post them this weekend.
Let me say up front that I don't own any of the above lenses but if I was getting one for myself I'd go with the 17-35 for several reasons:
1. The 17-55 and 12-24 are DX lenses. Although Nikon seems committed to the DX format if a FF Nikon does surface these lens would not be usable. For that reason I'm trying to limit my DX lens purchases.
2. Although some people get good results with the 12-24 many complain about soft corners.
3. The 17-35 focuses closer (12 vs 14.2) than the 17-55 therefore it should have better performance behind a dome. Several uw photographers I know get great results with the 17-35 - it has an established track record.
4. The 17-35 seems to have a slight edge over the 17-55 for the kind of topside photography that I do {landscape.) If you're a PJ or a wedding photog the 17-55 might have the edge.
I have the 10.5,16 fisheye,12-24,60 and 105. I haven't found a way to get the image acceptably sharp in the corners using the 12-24. I'd like to know if using a +1 or +2 will improve this corner sharpness drastically or not.
Steve - When I was shooting the 12-24 I obsessed over the corners for a while too, and then I did some testing of the lens topside and found it wasn't great in the corners there. I didn't figure I was going to make it better underwater than it was on land, so I accepted this was probably an F8 and smaller kind of glass. That said, the right port and port extension will optimize performance, and maybe a weak diopter. I am going through the same issues now trying to tweak my 17-40 Canon.
If all you have is the 10.5mm and 60mm I would highly recommend getting a midrange zoom. If you do much topside shooting you are going to need it.
How much topside shooting do you do? If you are like me (and most people) the majority of my shooting is topside (although my purchase decisions are skewed toward UW). If this is the case I would highly recommend the 18-200 mm VR. This is not a lens that you will use UW, but it is the lens you will use most frequently. This lens is very good despite its wide zoom range. See any of the reviews online for another opinion.
If you must have the absolute best and money is no object and you don't mind carying lots of glass I'd get the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR. both for topside. I know there are some here that use the 17-55mm for shark photography.
If you are really concerned only about underwater, or you plan to get a midrange zoom for topside anyway, then the 12-24mm really is the way to go. Nitpicking about corners aside this is a very good lens, fast AF-S and just the right focal length for WA shots underwater. And to put this in perspective, the corners on many of the old mainstay wide angle zoom lenses on full frame (or film) are not any better. We're just all spoiled by their performance on cropped sensors. BTW, the Tokina 12-24mm has very good reviews at 1/2 the price and desreves a hard look as an alternative to cover this range.
Larry, just for your info: the 17-35 vignettes a lot on full frame digital. I used it on the Kodak.
It's not a problem if you don't mind correcting it in Pshop - which I do since it is a super sharp piece of glass and the color and contrast in the photos are great.
James
Larry, just for your info: the 17-35 vignettes a lot on full frame digital. I used it on the Kodak.
It's not a problem if you don't mind correcting it in Pshop - which I do since it is a super sharp piece of glass and the color and contrast in the photos are great.
James
Hmmm...I wonder if that's something unique to the Kodak. I have a couple of friends that shoot the 17-35 on film and don't have a problem.
Because is new you won´t hear to much about it, but Sigma 17-70mm is a great all around lens focus near 8" and is 1:2.3 in magnification range. You can use it on a dome without diopters and is very sharp.
I shot the 17-35 last year in an Ikelite housing. I was disappointed in that it had about a 3-4' mininum focal length. It was great for wides but then the colors would wash out.
I loved the lens topside but with the Ikelite system, I was not impressed. Additionally, it was a nightmare to make it fit into the Ike case what with all the gearing etc. I had to remove one of the rubber collars on the lens and it wasn't good. I shot 2 dives with it and removed the lens.
This year, I'll be taking a Nikon 10.5, 12-25 and 105. I'll not be wasting my time with the 17-35 genre.
Dive cheerfully!
Ron
With the proper port and extension ring, the 17-35 has a range (no diopter) of about 10" from the port to infinity.
Cheers
James
Hi -
Another lens to consider may be the Nikon 18-70 DX.. I dont know if everyone considers this a midrange zoom or not.. but, I've used this lens on my D70 and had very good results with the +4 diopter. It is relatively inexpensive compared to 12-24 and 17-35... Just a thought...
M.
I have a couple of friends that shoot the 17-35 on film and don't have a problem.
When I used the 17-35 on film, wide open at 17 mm, I saw about a 1 stop fall off to the corners
Closing down to f4 or smaller, as for the shot below, eliminated that. This was f4, 1/25th of a second on E100 VS, 17mm. There's a subtle fall off visible in the upper left corner, but this would be easy to fix (as James says)
The shadow to the right is a real shadow
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
