Nikon 18-70mm Lens

Is anyone using this lens in an U/W housing? Specs are reasonably good and price is very acceptable. Down side is the long min. focus - the up side is G, IF and ED:

TIA,

Bob

• <LI class=TechSpec>18-70mmFocal Length Range <LI class=TechSpec>3.8xZoom Ratio <LI class=TechSpec>3.5-4.5Maximum Aperture <LI class=TechSpec>22-29Minimum Aperture <LI class=TechSpec>YesAutofocus <LI class=TechSpec>YesAF-S (Silent Wave Motor) <LI class=TechSpec>DX
  FX in DX Crop ModeCompatible Format(s) <LI class=TechSpec>YesDistance Information <LI class=TechSpec>YesED Glass Elements <LI class=TechSpec>YesSuper Integrated Coating <LI class=TechSpec>YesInternal Focusing <LI class=TechSpec>YesManual/Auto Focus Mode <LI class=TechSpec>1.3 ft. (0.38m)Minimum Focus Distance <LI class=TechSpec> 76°
  Maximum Angle of View <LI class=TechSpec> 22°50´
  Minimum Angle of View <LI class=TechSpec>15Lens (Elements) <LI class=TechSpec>13Lens (Groups) <LI class=TechSpec>1:6.2Maximum Reproduction Ratio <LI class=TechSpec>2.9x3in. (Diameter x Length)
  73x75.5mm (Diameter x Length)Dimensions <LI class=TechSpec>14.8oz. (390g)Weight <LI class=TechSpec>Nikon F-BayonetMount Type
  
• Screw-onAccepts Filter Type
  

I have used this lens underwater before (I don't own it anymore as I've sold off most of my DX lenses). It's not bad for a starter lens, but it's really not all that wide, especially on a DX body. It will do ok for some seascape type shots and portraits. It's not bad when you're not sure what you're going to see. It's also not a super fast lens at f/4, and the build quality is that of a consumer lens. But it is inexpensive and not a huge risk if you decide later to go with something else.

Many people prefer the sigma 17-70mm macro lens, because it focuses closer.

Scott

Many people prefer the sigma 17-70mm macro lens, because it focuses closer.

 

Scott

I agree completely, I used the 18-70mm with my D200 but was not pleased since it did not focus close. Now I use the Signa 17-70mm as a general all purpose lens if I don't know what to expect in a dive site. I does minimal wide angle and close ups, but not true macro.

I agree completely, I used the 18-70mm with my D200 but was not pleased since it did not focus close. Now I use the Signa 17-70mm as a general all purpose lens if I don't know what to expect in a dive site. I does minimal wide angle and close ups, but not true macro.

You guys are killing me I have been trying to find the non HSM version or either the Sigma 17-70 or the 18-50 f/2.8. The HSM versions were released in July of 2007, so there aren't many of the non HSM arround. I tried a 17-70 HSM in my housing ; ain't no way.

I have broaden my research to other lenses in the wide to mild tele zoom range.

You guys are killing me I have been trying to find the non HSM version or either the Sigma 17-70 or the 18-50 f/2.8. The HSM versions were released in July of 2007, so there aren't many of the non HSM arround. I tried a 17-70 HSM in my housing ; ain't no way.

 

I have broaden my research to other lenses in the wide to mild tele zoom range.

Mine is a non HSM, bought it just before the HSM was released. What is the difference besides the focus motor?

Mine is a non HSM, bought it just before the HSM was released. What is the difference besides the focus motor?

Here's a link:

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

There are a few errors, likely typos.

Here’s what I think is the difference: the lens diameter is increased for the HSM motor. The largest part of the HSM lens barrel is the zoom ring while the front of the non HSM is its largest. I haven’t had my hands on a non HSM. The zoom ring of the 17-70 HSM is 79 mm. The maximum diameter for Nexus lens zoom gears is 76 mm. Larger than that there would not be enough space for the gear teeth. You can measure the diameter of your focus ring sans the rubber facing and it should be 76 or less mm. I repeat. I have not measured the 18-50 f/2.8 either version or the non HSM 17-70.

Regards,

Bob

Here's a link:

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

 

There are a few errors, likely typos.

 

 

 

Here’s what I think is the difference: the lens diameter is increased for the HSM motor. The largest part of the HSM lens barrel is the zoom ring while the front of the non HSM is its largest. I haven’t had my hands on a non HSM. The zoom ring of the 17-70 HSM is 79 mm. The maximum diameter for Nexus lens zoom gears is 76 mm. Larger than that there would not be enough space for the gear teeth. You can measure the diameter of your focus ring sans the rubber facing and it should be 76 or less mm. I repeat. I have not measured the 18-50 f/2.8 either version or the non HSM 17-70.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

Hi Bob,

I'm pretty sure that you can install a smaller diameter zoom wheel into the housing?

I would check this out with the Nexus dealer in your area...

Bruce...

This lens does not perform well behind a dome port, I suspect because the the lens' nodal point position changes dramatically during zooming, and thus will not match any dome properly at most focal lengths. Net effect of this mismatch is lack of sharp focus. It's a cheap lens, and it performs accordingly.

The Nikon 18-70mm is optically decent (in air) but not very robust. I have used one for a few years, but it failed after a simple impact with the floor. It likes a big dome (usually with an extension to put the optical centre at the right distance from the dome) and a diopter (I have used +3D). It doesn't focus very close, and so works best in really clear water, for fish of a reasonable size: I liked it for shooting sharks.

18-70mm images from Palau:

18mm

18mm

70mm

I'm seeing if I can house a Nikon 17-55mm lens, because I can't accomodate the Sigma lenses, and have heard some mechanical horror stories about them. Again, for sharks. Mid-range zooms are not very useful for general underwater work unless they have macro capability, although I've managed to use the full zoom range of the 18-70mm lens, as shown above. I think that have limited, specialised, uses.

Tim

I'm seeing if I can house a Nikon 17-55mm lens, because I can't accomodate the Sigma lenses, and have heard some mechanical horror stories about them. Again, for sharks. Mid-range zooms are not very useful for general underwater work unless they have macro capability, although I've managed to use the full zoom range of the 18-70mm lens, as shown above. I think that have limited, specialised, uses.

 

Tim

 

Wow Tim, great shots. When you say "I can't accomodate the Sigma lenses", do you mean the HSM Sigmas or both HSM and non HSM? The Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 looks like a sweet piece of glass: fast & IF. Nexus lists the FP170 w. PE 40mm & +3/+4 diopter for it. I have this set up for the Nikkor 12-24, but the 17-55 is about 2-1/2 times what I was considering spending for mid range zoom. It would be a great top side lens even if a bit heavy. May be "I should man up" and get a real hunk of glass.

How would a +4 diopter change the 14.2" / 36 mm min. focus and 1:5 magification? Thanks for you input and please keep us posted on you progress.

Regards,

Bob

HSM is the problem.

The 17-55mm Nikkor is widely regarded as expensive (true) and of limited application (also true), and I would probably have avoided it if I had not got some decent images from the cheaper lens. You can probably use it as a baseball bat, though (it's a bit short to use as a cricket bat).

I can't yet say how well it will work, as I have only bathtime (!!) images until later in the week. Maybe more next week...

Tim

I have only bathtime (!!) images until later in the week.

Please don't post em Tim.

I for one am willing to wait until next week.

Paul C

Fair enough: my toes aren't that exciting, anyway.

Tim

I and others are interested in using Nikon's 17-55 in a Nexus housing. Jim (a forum member whose online name I've forgotten) had done extensive testing, and found the best combination to be 60 mm ext, +4 diopter, and Nexus' dome for the Nikon 12-24. This provided great results in a small test container. Then after several dives he got good results throughout the zoom range, with the exception ~ 40-55mm where focus at infinity was not good. Next he planned to see if using a +3 diopter (instead of +4) would solve the infinity focus problem at 40-55 mm. I don't know what he found out.

Tim, I'm anxious to hear your results from next week. If you post them under a new thread (nexus/nikon 17-55 or something like that), maybe Jim will jump in and share his latest results as well.

Thanks

Jerry

I'm at work, but I have images with a 40mm extension, 12-24mm dome and +3D that convince me: I'll post them later on when I get back to my own computer.

Tim

I'm at work, but I have images with a 40mm extension, 12-24mm dome and +3D that convince me: I'll post them later on when I get back to my own computer.

 

Tim

 

Anxiously awaiting shots of your toes

17mm, f19

17mm f6.7

55mm f19

55mm f4

Nexus housing, D200, Inon strobes; 40mm port extension and custom port for 12-24mm lens, +3D.

Bathtub conditions were substantially better than a silty pond in the east of England (Guildenburgh water: makes Stoney Cove feel like a tropical dive...).

I'm impressed by minimal distortion, rapid AF, depth of field and fairly good close-up performance. The pike was a small juvenile, maybe 20cm long at most.

Tim

With the 17-55 in the Subal housing, I use the 55mm extension and +2 dioptre. This seems to work better than the +4 for sharks etc without the distant focus problems.

Thanks for posting your results.

Did you have an opportunity to evaluate sharpness between 40 - 55 mm when focused on infinity?

Jerry