Sigma 18-55?

I am looking to buy an ikelite port and lens. I will be a beginner so i was looking at the sigma 18-55mm with 8" dome.

before i went out spending money however, i thought i would put it to the experts to see if they could recommend anything more suitable.

I would like to do close up stuff but I am aiming at just general underwater at the minute.

Cheers for any help

andy

I am looking to buy an ikelite port and lens. I will be a beginner so i was looking at the sigma 18-55mm with 8" dome.

before i went out spending money however, i thought i would put it to the experts to see if they could recommend anything more suitable.

I would like to do close up stuff but I am aiming at just general underwater at the minute.

 

Cheers for any help

andy

Hi Andy,

Welcome to the pond mate. . . .

As far as your lens choice is concerned, most of the 'experts' will scream long and loud about a piece of glass called the Sigma 17-70 Macro.

That equates to 17mm at the wide end and 70mm with close focusing (macro) capabilities at the other end. . .

The way that they carry on, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was actually "The Holy Grail".

Anyway, horses for courses, and it is probably a better choice than your 18-55...

HTH,

Bruce...

Note that the Sigma 17-70mm Macro HSM won't work with Ikelite housings. You'd have to get the non-HSM version. I'm not sure which version the "experts" scream about.

Note that the Sigma 17-70mm Macro HSM won't work with Ikelite housings. You'd have to get the non-HSM version. I'm not sure which version the "experts" scream about.

Don't know what problems you refer to the only one in use I have experienced is some vignetting at 17mm with the port shade and contact with the port inside if a fiter is attached.

Tim Digger

Don't know what problems you refer to the only one in use I have experienced is some vignetting at 17mm with the port shade and contact with the port inside if a fiter is attached.

Tim Digger

According to Ikelite, the diameter of the HSM version is too wide to fit into the port system. http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/2port_nikon.html#seedown

According to Ikelite, the diameter of the HSM version is too wide to fit into the port system. http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/2port_nikon.html#seedown

You can check out the Sigma site if you want:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp

The 18 - 50 HSM or not and the 17 - 70 HSM or not have the same 79 mm diamter. I hope I have not pissed anyone off, but I keep asking this question. Why not the 18 - 50?

Heya, pros for the 17-70 -

1) faster lens

2) closer minimum focus distance (20 vs 25 cm),

3) wider angle at the wide end (79 vs 76 degrees)

4) better macro (1:2.3 vs 1:3)

Ps I am by no means one of the 'experts' just been through the same 'why the 17-70' question on my shopping trip!

Heya, pros for the 17-70 -

1) faster lens

2) closer minimum focus distance (20 vs 25 cm),

3) wider angle at the wide end (79 vs 76 degrees)

4) better macro (1:2.3 vs 1:3)

 

Ps I am by no means one of the 'experts' just been through the same 'why the 17-70' question on my shopping trip!

One nit to pick with you, i.e. the lens in question is the 18-50 f/2.8 not the f/3.5 to whatever Sigma that has poor reviews. I see by the set of your jib that you are a Nikon shooter. I tried to fit the 18-50 HSM and 17-70 HSM versions in my Nexus housing (D80 M5). The zoom ring and the apron arround the ring diameters are larger than 76 mm; the maximum that the housing can accomadate without modifications. Sigma released the HSM versions of these lenses in July of '07. I assume that they stopped production of the non HSM then. Does the HSM version work in your Subal?

If you find a user 18-50 f/2.8 non HSM for Nikon, please let me know. Using a 60 mm extension (MP) and the 110 mm flat port the full 18-50 range did not vignette and the 170 mm dome should work. The 17-70 @ 70 extends 20 mm futher that the 18-50 @ 50 possibly easier to get good performance in a dome. I am fairly sure the you could not get the full zoom out of the 17-70 in a flat port.

Everyone on this form knows that I am not a expert.

Regards, Bob

One nit to pick with you, i.e. the lens in question is the 18-50 f/2.8 not the f/3.5 to whatever Sigma that has poor reviews. I see by the set of your jib that you are a Nikon shooter. I tried to fit the 18-50 HSM and 17-70 HSM versions in my Nexus housing (D80 M5). The zoom ring and the apron arround the ring diameters are larger than 76 mm; the maximum that the housing can accomadate without modifications. Sigma released the HSM versions of these lenses in July of '07. I assume that they stopped production of the non HSM then. Does the HSM version work in your Subal?

Isn't that exactly what I warned you about in October?

Isn't that exactly what I warned you about in October?

Yes, I tried two sources that said they had the non HSM versions. Since I had the lenses in hand, I check out the port/ extension variables and tried and modified gear on the zoom ring. I came within less than 1 mm of getting it to work. I posted FYI for a Nexus rig. You kindly inform us about an ikelite rig. Thank you.

Regards, Bob

I have the 17-70mm and like it a lot. Arturo Telle was actually the first to really rave to me about it, saying it was the lens he missed most when he went to full frame digital (a 5D). It is sharp, versatile, produced saturated colours. I find it a great lens for shooting portraits of medium to large creatures.

Since I already had a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8, I only bought it in the summer of 2007 after my 28-70 died (it has since come back to life), but I have no idea if it is a HSM one or not. I suspect not - otherwise it would have HSM logos all over it. I haven't got it here with me - so I can't check. But I'd be interested to know how you tell?

It fits in my Subal's just fine. Here are some sample images taken with it.

Alex

I've got the HSM version and it fits in a subal behind the fisheye port with a 33ext ring. I havent managed to find a suitable zoom gear yet - although it kind of works with some padding and velcro tape round the lens and the focus gear 'meshing' against this. (the nice people at ocean optics are trying to find a suitable gear for me) not wanting to hijack the thread but a quick question for alex - are those shots taken with or without a diopter. subal recomend a +2 but then you cant fully zoom in.

cheers

For Alex

I think that you use your lense behind a dome , do you add diopters ??

Thank and happy new year !!

Dominique

Also a question for Alex,

I was disappointed in the corner sharpness of my 17-70 (non HSM) at the wide end. I see that a couple of your pictures above suffer from the same. Is this normal for this lens? I was using mine behind a S&S Optical Dome (6in/15cm) and thinking about purchasing the larger NX Dome to hopefully resolving the issue.

I think that you use your lense behind a dome , do you add diopters ??

Hi Dominique,

I have always used the lens with dioptres. I actually started off using a Canon 500D, but actually find better corner sharpness at the wide end with a cheaper, single element dioptre.

I was disappointed in the corner sharpness of my 17-70 (non HSM) at the wide end. I see that a couple of your pictures above suffer from the same. Is this normal for this lens? I was using mine behind a S&S Optical Dome (6in/15cm) and thinking about purchasing the larger NX Dome to hopefully resolving the issue.

Hi Pat,

Several of those images are taken behind a 4" dome. With such a tiny dome and a rectilinear lens, then yes, the corners loose a bit - particularly when very close. But with the large dome, 8", it is fine with the dioptre, which is what most of the other of those shots are taken with (sharks, not angel, + turtle). The rhinopias and seadragon were both taken with the small dome and 500D - see comments above - too.

I use the two domes with this lens depending on what I want to achieve. The small dome allows me much closer focus and much better quality of lighting at this close focus distance. The big dome gives better corners.

I tend to use this lens for creature portraits - so a bit of loss of softness in the corners does not really distract from the image. Of course if they were wide angle scenics and the corners weren't sharp - then they would distract from the image and that would be bad.

Alex

Since I already had a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8, I only bought it in the summer of 2007 after my 28-70 died (it has since come back to life), but I have no idea if it is a HSM one or not. I suspect not - otherwise it would have HSM logos all over it.

Alx

According to the Sigma site (cite the site?), the 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG, filter 67 mm, min. focus 33 cm, is not HSM. It is full 43 mm coverage.

My sigma is the older one - the 77mm filter one. F2.8-F2.8. Full frame lens.

Alex

But the is the lens 18-55 a good lens to use underwater?

And is there anybody who can show me some results with this lens?

Chris

I use the 18-50 F2.8 HSM Macro (but not often) behind a Sea & Sea optical dome port. I got my zoom gears from divervision. The photo I use as my avatar was taken with this lens. Not sure about the 18-55....