Human Close ups and portraits 14mm, 17-55 or 12-24??

After i have shoot now many fashion & portraits underwater I fell that i dont really have the right Lens for this job and I serious thinking off Getting a Nikon 17-55 but before that i like to hear your opinions.

I have read allt the Wetpixel Threads about this lens but I will use it in different ways so here we go again.

My tokina is good but I feel that A is not sharp enough with my D200 & second Cromatisk aberation is a high.

The 16mm is exelent Lens but very easy , If i change the angle of the camera , body baprts go out ouf control & distrosion do a ugly job

10.5 EXELENT in open water and really full body portraits BUT not for pool work

So I need a lens that have great optics and i can go really near to the subject. I need to can take a photo off just a face and not just full body portraits

14mm Nikon is to a altenativ but i dont know that lens .

Courius to read what you guys think

I purchased the 17-55 about a month ago. It is definitely a very well constructed professional grade lens, and you pay for it. It is expensive, and one can argue whether other lenses are better value, but none seem to be superior overall. The reason I bought it was after seeing some photos taken with it by another photograper on a previous trip, mostly of 5-8 ft animals like sharks, turtles, goliath grouper. I really liked the 'normal' perspective it provided. I would imagine that it would work very well for underwater human shots as well to give a nice perspective. I have not taken it under water yet, topside it appears to be very sharp.

I plan to use it next week on a shark trip in the Bahamas.

Hi Lambis,

Have you thought about using a prime like the Nikkor 24mm or 35mm? These are both extremely sharp, compact, and inexpensive lenses which will give you 36mm or 50mm equivalents (as compared to FF).

As an example, here's a photo I shot at 40mm (FF):

Cheers

James

Hi Lambis,

 

Have you thought about using a prime like the Nikkor 24mm or 35mm? These are both extremely sharp, compact, and inexpensive lenses which will give you 36mm or 50mm equivalents (as compared to FF).

 

Cheers

James

Hi James

Oh off cource i have think about those lenses and follow will work with my dome

AF Nikkor20/2.8D

AF Nikkor24/2.8D

AF Nikkor28/2.8D

about the AF Nikkor35/2.0D i dont know if it is working with my dome but this is a lens that have the best sharpness and the lower CA off all those above.

But this is a lens where i come to ca 52mm. Sounds as a perfect Portrait lens.

Yes they are inexpensive but i have newer see one use them underwater and I dont konw of the shaprness , Saturation & contrast is better that the 17-55.

Off cource I think that a zoom will be more flexible but i dont know if i use the 17-55 on 55mm and try to shoot a eye or something how good it will work.

Lambis

Lambis there is a thread on this at

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...;hl=nikon+17-55

My wife photographs better than most underwater because she has an olive complexion, blue eyes and well defined dark eyebrows and eyelashes. Taking the average model underwater will do her no favours because of the physical effect of the water on her skin, the colour changes that will reveal veins close to the surface, and the fact that we tend to get close with wide-angle lenses when any David Bailey will tell you to (in the studio) stand off with a longer focal length lens to get a more flattering perspective. Hence, too often the girl photographed underwater ends up looking slightly unwell with a big nose!

Hence, too often the girl photographed underwater ends up looking slightly unwell with a big nose!

Ahem ... guys can be models too !

Maybe the new Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DC Macro lens is a good solution for me, inner focusing system and a minimum focusing distance of 20cm

I have desife.. I will go with the 17-35 or 17-55 hmm I can get both for the same price and I have hear that the 17-55 is beter in Flares and lite sharper. In the same time close focus is better.

I don't think you can go wrong with the 17-55, I think it's just an issue that the Sigma is a great value. When I researched this, there were some threads that indicated there were some quality control issues with the Sigma.

I'm looking forward to seeing some pics; your model(s) are great.

I have finaly ordered a 17-55mm. Hope that it will work with my Athena OPD 170 dome

I have used my tokina 12-24 without diopter with a 30cm extension so maybe it will work with the same extension

It is a longer lens I have the 6cm extension for the Subal

The 17-55 seems to gaining rapid acceptance underwater. I used it on white sharks in Guadalupe, and made 24x36 inch prints which are tack sharp. Anything shorter than 36 mm would not have worked. With the subjects swimming so rapidly, it was nice to have the zoom.

Hal