10-20 or 17-55 ???

all,

I need a bit of advice from all you learned folks here on wetpixel.

I have both lenses the Nikkor 17-55 and the sigma 10-20mm.

I am off to the red sea - Dahab in the next couple of weeks.

I have enough cash to buy extensions and gears for only one of them -the question is which one?

and that is where i need some advice anyone have a good comparison of these underwater?

regards,

Alastair

I'll go with the wider option.

First I prefer WA so that is my personal favor.

In Dahav there is a good macro and very nice reefs & formations (e.g. the Bells, the Kenyon)but its rear to see big animals so the 17-55 is not very useful there but you can get great WA images of walls holes and so.

but again that is my preference, its all depend on what you like.

Thats sounds about right to me.

That way you can leave me the 17-55 to play with.

Thats sounds about right to me.

 

That way you can leave me the 17-55 to play with.

I am sure that you would take the best of care too

and when you get your D300aquatica you will let me take care of it while you are offshore!

I agree, wider is better. Go with the 10-20mm.

The 17-55 is a great land midrange zoom. Underwater its best as a shark lens. The traditional option is either WA or macro. The 17-55 isn't really a good option for macro and trying to do everything with one lens doesn't work out well for either.

The 10-20 should give good WA. Focus on that.

Happy Shooting!

Yep, I agree too. Go with the 10-20. 17-55 as others have said is fine top-side, but its not wide enough underwater nor macro enough.

Ive never been happy with mid-range lenses underwater, they let you think you can get away with longer camera to subject distances and you end up with sub-par results- go wide.

You most likely have a 18453 extension for the 105mm & the 18-70 as per your equipment signature.

Here are a couple of scenarios

Get a 18463 extension, its slightly longer than the recommended 18456 but it does great, couple the 18463 to your existing 18453 for a total of 50mm of extension, that is close enough for the 54mm recommended for the 17-55.

or

Get the 18457 recommended for the 17-55 and use the existing 18453 that you have for the Sigma

This way you only buy one extension ring and two zoom gear.

Cheers

The 17-55 is not a macro lens. It does decent wide angle, but a dedicated wide angle lens will be better for true wide angle shots. It is very good for in between shots. Fish shots, small to medium size corals. Almost any shot of an animal you cannot count on getting very close to.

I like this lens for shooting UW but never use it when I hope to get mostly wide angle shots. I like it for general purpose reef type shots. It is the alternative for going for the strictly macro type shots or looking for the large (or very close) type wide angle shots.

Jean,

Thanks for the suggestion. that makes sense, then at least i can try them both and make my own comparision.

Although looking at the other replies i think that i am leaning towards the 10-20mm.

thanks to all....

Alastair

Alastair,

Tokina will bring athe new 11-16 mm in a couple of weeks In Europe it will be out end May, that's what Tokina Europe told me. Don't know if you are still at home but perhaps you could consider that one as well.

I am sure that you would take the best of care too

 

and when you get your D300aquatica you will let me take care of it while you are offshore!

Always the comedian!! :glare: