Nikon 17-55

Hi -

All these photos from Guadalupe (except where noted d80/18-70) were taken with the 17-55 and +2 diopter. I was very happy with this setup.

http://homepage.mac.com/mikepalasz/PhotoAlbum17.html

M.

I can't house the 17-55 in my current housing, but will do it with my next UW hsg. This is a very nice lens. I've also had good luck at Cocos with the small, inexpensive, Nikon 16mm FE and the 20mm -- both 2.8 lenses. If you can get close, the 16 FE is superb.

By the way, shot with Ike i-TTL.

All the best,

Chris

I am also considering the 17-55 primarily as a shark lens when i manage to get back to cocos - what are other opinions for this as a shark lens versus the 12-24 (I worry would be a bit too wide for shy hammers & other sharks). I think it would be great to get fullshots and portrait shots at the same time.

 

Just to be clear, I only buy nikon glass. For me that's the reason I buy a nikon camera, so no thoughts of Sigma etc.. Yes, the 18-70 is a consideration but I shoot a lot of low light & action topside therefore wanting a f/2.8. Also I feel the optical difference between consumer & pro lenses may be magnified when shooting UW(is this true???). That and Aquatica charts for my D200 housing recommend a +3 or +4 diopter with the 18-70 but not with the 17-55 thus reducing the consumer lens quality further.

 

Thoughts??

First of all. I would not recommend anyone uses a Nikon 18-70mm if they are after top quality results. The 17-55mm on the other hand is an excellent lens - one of those lenses you stick on your camera and can rest assured that you have quality glass in place.

Personally, I would not use any rectilinear lens wider than 24mm (on a Nikon DSLR) without a dioptre. Of course they work fine without a dioptre, but better with. But I am not going to try and persuade anyone to use a dioptre - if they don't want to it is fine by me.

I have used the 12-24mm, 17-35mm and more recently the 17-55mm underwater to shoot sharks underwater. I use all with dioptres. And all are excellent shark lenses. For non-fed situations the extra reach of the 17-35 or 17-55mm is certainly going to be more productive than the 12-24mm, but if you get the one off very close pass you are going to be wishing for the 12-24mm. The 12-24mm would also be better for shots placing the sharks in their environment - not all underwater photography is about filling the frame as much as possible! So in conclusion, both are probably worth taking (but thankfully all three lenses require very similar port, extention ring, dioptre setups).

Another lens I would suggest at least looking at is the Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-2.8. I use this lens a lot and think it is an excellent performer optically. I'd agree that the build quality is not up there with a pro level Nikon lens, but the quality of the results way exceeds anything other than the most expensive Nikon glass. I use this lens behind a flat port most of the time.

Alex

thanks for the thoughts and pics guys. great stuff. sounds like the 17-55 is a buy in my books once I can whip up:

$1200 lens + $230 port ext + $80 zoom gear + $60 shipping + $150 customs duty & fees = $1720

yikes

Personally, I would not use any rectilinear lens wider than 24mm (on a Nikon DSLR) without a dioptre. Of course they work fine without a dioptre, but better with. But I am not going to try and persuade anyone to use a dioptre - if they don't want to it is fine by me.

Thanks for the info Alex. You had me at "personally", your photos are convincing enough. I read up on a couple diopter threads and the "dome theory" piece and they sound like a good idea. Am I right to say they work on a similar principle to magic filters - adjusting a lens' focus range to better suit the dome's closer virtual image like a magic filter adjusts the camera's white balance range to better suit the colour u/w?

Do you guys find that one diopter works best based solely on the dome like the article suggests? (Suggests a +3 for a 20cm/8" dome like my aquatica). Should I go solely on this suggestion or buy a +2 and try that too(for my 12-24 and later 17-55)?? What brands are best? B+W?

(should i be asking this in another thread?)

cheers,

chris

Howdy,

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have a 17-55 that I've been using for surface shots but can't currently house it. It is so spectacular (see gratuitous land shot below) that I am changing housings (well, for this and the Sigma 10-20, and just general upgrade...).

All the best,

Chris

Cypresses, egrets and cormorants in fog, lit by streetlight. Nikon D70 and 17-55 AF-S at 17mm, f2.8 for **10s** with dark noise reduction, ISO200. Shot last night around 9PM. Uncropped. AF locked!!!!!!

The fact that this was lit by a streetlight will give you an idea of what a surreal place Baton Rouge is...

Nice image Chris, I also love this lens, but mine has recently developed the "infinity focus" problem. At 24 or wider it won't AF on infinity, I have to focus at 55 and then zoom out to get good focus. Of course this is not a problem underwater since the lens focus close, but I use mine topside a lot, so I am sending it back to Nikon on monday, hope they fix it...

Luiz

Nice image Chris, I also love this lens, but mine has recently developed the "infinity focus" problem. At 24 or wider it won't AF on infinity, I have to focus at 55 and then zoom out to get good focus. Of course this is not a problem underwater since the lens focus close, but I use mine topside a lot, so I am sending it back to Nikon on monday, hope they fix it...

 

Luiz

Luiz,

Thanks for the comment. Is this focus problem common for this lens? I didn't see anything in a cursory search...

Cheers,

Chris

It used to be common in the early versions (I got mine almost 2 years ago) but I heard the new ones are fine...

My lame question...

Is the 17-55 just too wide to fit into an Ikelite port?

I thought it was about the same width as the 17-35 (which is compatible with Ikelite ports), but it is listed as not compatible here:

http://ikelite.com/web_pages/2port_nikon.html

Luiz