Tokina 10-17 too wide. Options?

Considering all the love that the Tokina 10-17mm lens receives, I feel like a hieratic for asking this question... I am shooting the D300. I find that there are times when the Tokina lens is just too wide for my purposes. For example, sharks or eagle rays. When I shoot these guys in environments where they are not being fed, most of the time the closest they permit approach is about 8 to 10ft so they often look like a guppy in my viewfinder. Also, there are times when friends ask me to take photos of them while they are diving and again, the Tokina is just too wide. Currently, the only other houseable lens I have is the 60mm for macro. When I shot P&S, I used the Inon 100 WA and it was perfect for those subjects. Can anyone suggest a lens that will pickup where my Tokina leaves off?

Considering all the love that the Tokina 10-17mm lens receives, I feel like a hieratic for asking this question... I am shooting the D300. I find that there are times when the Tokina lens is just too wide for my purposes. For example, sharks or eagle rays. When I shoot these guys in environments where they are not being fed, most of the time the closest they permit approach is about 8 to 10ft so they often look like a guppy in my viewfinder. Also, there are times when friends ask me to take photos of them while they are diving and again, the Tokina is just too wide. Currently, the only other houseable lens I have is the 60mm for macro. When I shot P&S, I used the Inon 100 WA and it was perfect for those subjects. Can anyone suggest a lens that will pickup where my Tokina leaves off?

Nikon 17-35 or 17-55 (DXonly) or Sigma17-70 are the most popular next step up. The 12-24 is liked by some but is not my favorite.

Exactly what Loftus said.

 

Exactly what Loftus said.

Doesn't Alex Mustard use a 1.5 teleconverter with his 16mm & Tokina? Would that work, without having to buy a new lens? I believe he wrote about that in his D700 review.

Doesn't Alex Mustard use a 1.5 teleconverter with his 16mm & Tokina? Would that work, without having to buy a new lens? I believe he wrote about that in his D700 review.

Yes, but that's the 16mm on the D700 FX, similar to the 10.5 with teleconvertor for DX. I think that the 17mm end of the 10-17 is pretty similar to the 10.5 with 1.4 teleconvertor. I guess one could put a teleconvertor on the 10-17 but one does start to get some light loss issues then.

Ouch! Those Nikon lens are out of my price range but the Sigma looks just right since I'm also hoping to get a 105mm in the near future.

On a similar subject, since you guys brought up the teleconverters... Anyway to add a diopter or something to my 60mm for a little more closeup work rather than purchase the 105mm? I keep getting conflicting info on that!

Hi,

Sorry but, I would not recommand Nikkor 17-35mm for DX camera at all, based on my experiance.

It is great lens for FF but, not for DX as you won't even see much difference on 17 or 35....

Sam

Ouch! Those Nikon lens are out of my price range but the Sigma looks just right since I'm also hoping to get a 105mm in the near future.

 

On a similar subject, since you guys brought up the teleconverters... Anyway to add a diopter or something to my 60mm for a little more closeup work rather than purchase the 105mm? I keep getting conflicting info on that!

When you say "more" closeup work, what do you mean by that? Both the 60mm and 105mm micros provide the same magnification (1:1), but at different working distances. If you're looking for greater magnification, a diopter, wet or dry, will achieve that end. However, keep in mind that it does this by reducing the minimum focusing distance, and with the 60mm, you already have a fairly short minimum focusing distance and reducing this any further may begin to present problems in being able to properly light your subject, and perhaps getting too close. Optimally, you'd want to use the diopter on the 105mm.

Hi,

Sorry but, I would not recommand Nikkor 17-35mm for DX camera at all, based on my experiance.

It is great lens for FF but, not for DX as you won't even see much difference on 17 or 35....

 

Sam

I have to disaggree with you on this one. The 17-35 is an excellent big critter lens which I think the OP was asking about. I use it on my D200 with very good results. No, it's not a super-wide, but it's very sharp with my Aquatica 8" dome and extension and provides a nice in-between focal length. Good for moderate wide-angle to semi-close-up. Here are couple of examples:

Turtle at 20mm

Tight shot of a lobster at 35mm no diopters on either shot

I have used the Sigma 10-20 zoom, which pretty much picks up where the Tokina ends, at ca 100°, and then goes to app. 70° in the narrow end. Good shark, cfwa and wreck lens. Also descent for over/unders. It focuses to 24 cm, so it's the best of the ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) zoom lot in that aspect, which off course helps getting sharp images when put behind a dome port. It has HSM, which makes focus reasonably fast. Very affordable.

You can buy a kenko 1.4x and use it with the tokina and the 60mm (as long as your 60mm is not the new AFS one).

The sigmas 10-20 and 17-70 are very good for those situations (I think you will like the 17-70 a lot)

I'm getting a real "warm and fuzzy" feeling about that Sigma already!

Thanks for the help!

I'm getting a real "warm and fuzzy" feeling about that Sigma already!

 

Thanks for the help!

One more thing, there two optically identical 17-70s one with HSM (wider body) and one without (mine). Make sure your housing system will have a zoom ring for the one you choose.

I have to disaggree with you on this one. The 17-35 is an excellent big critter lens which I think the OP was asking about. I use it on my D200 with very good results. No, it's not a super-wide, but it's very sharp with my Aquatica 8" dome and extension and provides a nice in-between focal length. Good for moderate wide-angle to semi-close-up. Here are couple of examples:

-------------------------------------------

Hi,

O.K. I saw your pictures & it is amazing and I think I should try more with this lens. Some reason I did not like this lens

with dx cameras. Thanks.

Sam

I am using the Tokina 12-24 and I am very happy with. I bought it primarily for top-side photography, but it is performing very well UW. If you would like to be even less wide, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is my choice UW lens if I can't decide if am shooting marco of WA (it is an ok compromise only, though). The Sigma lenses are optically good, but the durability is not there for me. I lost 3 Sigma lenses to motor failures already (all of them hiking in the desert, so maybe I am just abusing my stuff more than I should).

I am using the Tokina 12-24 and I am very happy with. I bought it primarily for top-side photography, but it is performing very well UW. If you would like to be even less wide, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is my choice UW lens if I can't decide if am shooting marco of WA (it is an ok compromise only, though). The Sigma lenses are optically good, but the durability is not there for me. I lost 3 Sigma lenses to motor failures already (all of them hiking in the desert, so maybe I am just abusing my stuff more than I should).

Hmmmmmm....That's interesting too because I have heard so good things about the Tamron lenses. Would the 17-50 be a better option than the 17-35?

Hi,

O.K. I saw your pictures & it is amazing and I think I should try more with this lens. Some reason I did not like this lens

with dx cameras. Thanks.

 

Sam

Also, my 2nd place DEEP Indonesia wide angle shot was with the 17-35. It's way sharper in the corners than any other non-fisheye lenses. I no longer shoot with it, but it can really do a great job in the right circumstances.

The Sigma lenses are optically good, but the durability is not there for me. I lost 3 Sigma lenses to motor failures already (all of them hiking in the desert, so maybe I am just abusing my stuff more than I should).

I think lower priced lenses all may suffer from sealing issues from dust. And you definitely need to check that the Sigma lens is a good copy, mostly where they fall down is quality control. But a couple of easy back focus checks, etc can find that easily. Other than that, I've had my Sigma 1-70 in fairly demanding use above and below for a couple of years now with out any issues. Even dropped the camera and had it land on the lens - shattered the filter, but the lens has kept ticking.

I really like it, shoot it behind a small dome and ext ring and can shoot sort of macro to wideish angle with one setup.

Jack

Hmmmmmm....That's interesting too because I have heard so good things about the Tamron lenses. Would the 17-50 be a better option than the 17-35?

It has been a very long time since I last had a Nikon in my hands (it was an all mechanical one, not a single electric component in there), so I am not he best person to answer that, but I have always held the Nikkor lenses in very high regard. My gut feeling is that the Nikkor will be optically and mechanically better than the Tamron lens (maybe not by much after reading the reviews), but most definitely a lot more expensive. Here is the Tamron review: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report--review

The Tamron lens focuses quite fast on my Canon and gives me good quality photos. The only problem is that if you shoot at the 17 mm end without a diopter behind a 6" dome, you will get unacceptable distortion at the corners. Physics dictates some limits here, so not much you can do. The lens extend quite a bit, so if you chose a port that will allow the lens to go to its 50 mm length, you will be far from the port at the 17 mm length. If you use a shorter port, the 17 mm end will become usable, but you also limit the tele-end of the lens. I suppose a 8" dome would help, but I might be wrong.

Somebody should build a pressure balanced extending port that would adjust to the lens length as you zoom in and out.

I find that there are times when the Tokina lens is just too wide for my purposes.

Get closer to your subject?!

Only joking. I would suggest the 12-24mm, or 17-35mm or 17-70mm for a Nikon user. The middle of the three is the most expensive, but it is also the only one that will work on a future FX model.

The 17-70mm is my favourite of the three.

Alex