Lens Advice needed

Everyone

Im helping out a friend with some gear selection for a project hes working on (then on others in the future). My friend has settled on D700 Camera which will go into a Aquatica housing with Aquaview viewfinder and a 8" Dome port. Since im a Canon shooter im not to familiar with the nikkor lenses and need some help making a recommendation to him. If it was canon i would recommend a 16-35 II or a 17-40 on a 8" dome

The shot will be deep and dark (call it a night dive for all intensive purposes), and will be a wide angle shot with a few vertical's and horizontal's in it so distortion is some what of a issue but if its manageable thats fine. This will also be shot on a tripod so not worried about shutterspeed as the Exposure time will probably be in the 15-45 second range. A zoom lens will be preferred so that it can be multi functional onland as well.

Thanks in advance

Dan

The equivalent Nikon lens is a 17-35, most likely with a +2 or +3 dioptre. The fisheye options are the Nikon 16mm or Sigma 15mm.

Alex reviewed the 17-35 on the D700 in his D3 and D700 reviews, and I posted some 16mm on the D700 here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27681

I hope to get the 17-35 in the water this Friday.

loftus

i havent been following nikon news, but why does the 14-24 get so many comments on the extreme of the spectrum compared to the 17-35?

If you find yourself shooting the 17mm end of the 17-35mm mostly, look at the nikkor 18mm f/2.8 AF-D (high contrast and sharper than the 17-35mm).

loftus

 

i havent been following nikon news, but why does the 14-24 get so many comments on the extreme of the spectrum compared to the 17-35?

The 14-24 is an awesome lens topside, but no one has yet been able to get decent results underwater under f11, too many issues with corner sharpness, and unfortunately the 14-24 does not take a dioptre.

UW_nikon - thanks for advice, but im looking at advice for a friend who will be shooting this project and needs a lens recommendation and for right now a zoom is what hes looking.

I would recommend Nikon's 17-35mm f2.8 as an excellent wide-angle zoom lens for underwater work. I have used it for years, without any diopter, in domes of 8" (Aquatica) and 9" (Seacam). I recently bought the 14-24mm and shot a test roll with it using an adapted Aquaatica 8" dome on my Seacam during a recent trip to Bali. Now that Seacam has modified their 9" dome to allow use of this lens, I expect to use this lens much more in the future. But I do not expect that it will replace the 17-35 as my favorite wide-angle lens.

My basic take on the two lenses, relative to each other, is that if you need every nth degree of wide coverage, go with the 14-24. But be sure that your housing manufacturer has a dome that can accommodate the big diameter of this lens. Overall, however, the 17-35 is a much more versatile lens. It focuses several inches closer, which makes a significant difference underwater because you are focusing on the virtual image formed by the dome, not the real subject. The closer focus and 35mm short end of the 17-35 allows you to focus on and fill the frame with a subject almost half the size of that possible with the 14-24 at 24mm. At the wide end you gain only about 7 degrees additional angle of coverage (on the horizontal long side of the frame) with 14mm vs 17mm. Additionally, the 17-35 allows the use of standard 77mm filters while there is no practical way of attaching any filters to the 14-24mm lens. Most housing manufacturers already have a zoom gear available for the 17-35mm.

I can't say who has a manual focus gear for either lens as perhaps only Seacam has two lens controls on their housing, whereas most others (Subal, Aquatica, etc) have only a single lens control which means you have to choose between having a gear for zoom or manual focus. And most photographers choose to have a zoom gear and rely on auto-focus for focusing.

Because I really value manual focusing with a wide-angle lens, and most other lenses as well, I shoot Seacam. And have worked with a good machine shop to make make both zoom and manual focus gears for almost every lens I use underwater. Including both the 17-35 and the 14-24.

Fred

I agree with Fred on everything except the likelihood that you will need a diopter. Particularly with an 8" dome. Possibly because Fred uses manual focus; but with autofocus, without a dioptre I had a lot more trouble with the lens hunting to acquire focus. I see very little downside of using a dioptre.

I can't say who has a manual focus gear for either lens as perhaps only Seacam has two lens controls on their housing, whereas most others (Subal, Aquatica, etc) have only a single lens control which means you have to choose between having a gear for zoom or manual focus. And most photographers choose to have a zoom gear and rely on auto-focus for focusing.

 

Because I really value manual focusing with a wide-angle lens, and most other lenses as well, I shoot Seacam. And have worked with a good machine shop to make make both zoom and manual focus gears for almost every lens I use underwater. Including both the 17-35 and the 14-24.

Bit of a hijack, but we are offering extension rings with focus made by Athena for Sea & Sea housings. They aren't tremendously popular, but I think the focus control can be extremely useful with superwide zooms.

To Loftus et al,

While I do feel manual focus is really worth having, I also use the 17-35mm with auto-focus, without any dioptre, and haven't experienced any particular problem with the lens "hunting" to find focus. I feel that if you use a little care in picking where on the subject you AF you can make it easier or harder for the system to work. Look for an "edge line" at the same distance to help the AF.

Ong the one roll of film I took in Bali with the 14~24mm, I got some technically sharp shots at approximately f8. But only a few of those were taken with AF. More on manual focus. The water conditions were so marginal that I knew that backscatter would make the images unsuitable for professional use. And only of value for the technical info on using the lens with that dome. Once I get one of Seacam's new Superdomes that allows use of the lens I expect to use it more frequently. And will consider whether its worth making a larger dome (maybe 12") which would have considerable advantages for over/under shooting. My primary use for the 14-24mm will be at 14mm, or almost 14mm, for over/under shots. In the past I have used either the Sigma 14mm f2.8 or the Nikon 14mm f2.8 for over/unders. But my first look at the newer lens suggests that it is a little sharper than the Sigma lens and exhibits a little less vignetting the Nikkor while being about equal in sharpness.

Eventually, I'll probably sell both of the fixed focal length 14mm lenses and their custom manual focus gears (for Seacam) which is what I feel is easiest for over/under pics. The 14-24 will also be a more versatile "back-up" for the 17-35mm than a fixed 14mm.

Fred