Nikon 17-35 f2.8 or Nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 or Nikon 12-24 f4

I'm searching my ... off for information about which lens to choose.

I own a D300 in a Ikelite housing and can't make up my mind about which lens to choose.

Mainly I use my uw gear to do portrets in indoor swimming pools.

Anyone having experience with Nikon's 17-35 f2.8 using a DX camera and a Ikelite housing?

Nikon's 12-24 would be a good option, but f4 might not be big enough.

I also don't know how Nikon's 10-24 is behaving below sealevel.

Could anyone help me out here?

Thanx

marco

I once asked a similar question:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13313&hl=

I once asked a similar question:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13313&hl=

Thanks, but I read this tread already many times.

To be honest, things were not really clear to me after reading. For me cornersharpness is less important, focus speed and a wide® apenture are more important to me.

I want to be sure my 1400 eur will be spent well. I tried the same with Nikon's 16-85 which is now down-graded to a 'dry' lens (=it's useless below sealevel).

Hope to get some support here...

Thanks anyway for your reply!

Marco

If you are planning to use strobes as your lighting source, then the difference between the 2.8 lens and f4 lens means little.

Focus speed differences won't be noticeable either.

If corner sharpness is important, then the 12-24 is the better choice. I have no knowledge on the 10-24.

If you are planning to use strobes as your lighting source, then the difference between the 2.8 lens and f4 lens means little.

 

Focus speed differences won't be noticeable either.

 

If corner sharpness is important, then the 12-24 is the better choice. I have no knowledge on the 10-24.

Thanks for your reply!

The main reason why I would like a big(ger) apenture is to catch as much light as I can, so the tiles at the end of the swimmingpool are (more) visible too.

I make portrets of kids while swimming through a big canvas. To get their faces exposed correctly I use 2 strobes. But all that is behind this canvas is black/underexposed. I noticed a higher ISO is possible but then again noise is an issue.

Because my current lens (tamron 11-18, f4.5-5.6) needs to be replaced, I might as well buy a good piece of glass...

Feel free to brainstorm with me

Hi Marco,

Personally, i'd say get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, hands down. In tests, its shown to be as sharp or sharper than the 12-24mm, but its a 2.8 and cheaper. My 12-24mm's going up for sale soon cause of this lens. I find 2.8 better for focusing UW, not saying its faster than the 12-24, but a f/2.8 lens will hunt less than an f/4 lens. I also shoot a lot of low light topside and all my glass is now f/2.8 or faster. Though I don't really shoot at f/2.8 uw as the corners would likely turn to mush.

For a 3rd party lens its quite amazing, and im a bit of a nikkor snob.

Ive posted a few photos with it on wetpixel, just do a search for the lens. Here's a post i just made today, the last two over/under shots in my post are with the tokina.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...mp;#entry214892

Cheers,

Chris

For me cornersharpness is less important, focus speed and a wide® apenture are more important to me.

 

I want to be sure my 1400 eur will be spent well.

The main reason why I would like a big(ger) apenture is to catch as much light as I can, so the tiles at the end of the swimmingpool are (more) visible too

I see. I would go with the 17-35. I do not know but I think too wideangle lenses do not give the best "view" of faces for portraits. Another issue is that if you shoot at 2.8 DOF maybe too short and the tiles may not be visible (they will be, but blurry). Besides, the 17-35 will be a great lens if you ever go FX.

How about having a seperate strobe in the area behind the canvas lighting the tiles? That should eliminate the dark area.

I'm sure you are used to this, but shooting portraits of a model in a horizontal position I found the 12-24 a bit too tight - and used the Tokina 10-17. If the model is horizontal distortion isn't too bad.

Hi Marco,

 

Personally, i'd say get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, hands down. In tests, its shown to be as sharp or sharper than the 12-24mm, but its a 2.8 and cheaper. My 12-24mm's going up for sale soon cause of this lens. I find 2.8 better for focusing UW, not saying its faster than the 12-24, but a f/2.8 lens will hunt less than an f/4 lens. I also shoot a lot of low light topside and all my glass is now f/2.8 or faster. Though I don't really shoot at f/2.8 uw as the corners would likely turn to mush.

 

For a 3rd party lens its quite amazing, and im a bit of a nikkor snob.

 

Ive posted a few photos with it on wetpixel, just do a search for the lens. Here's a post i just made today, the last two over/under shots in my post are with the tokina.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...entry214892

Cheers,

 

Chris

Hi Chris,

That less hunting with f2.8 sounds like music to my ears!

16mm is too short. Right now i use the Tamron 11-18 and still at 18mm I almost crush those kids...

The 17-35 would be perfect if it would operate reliable in an Ikelite housing.

thx

marco

How about having a seperate strobe in the area behind the canvas lighting the tiles? That should eliminate the dark area.

 

I'm sure you are used to this, but shooting portraits of a model in a horizontal position I found the 12-24 a bit too tight - and used the Tokina 10-17. If the model is horizontal distortion isn't too bad.

I have been thinkin about 1 or 2 extra slave-strobes but that's too much hassle.

Like I refered in my other reply, I use a tamron 11-18 and at 18mm I still have to come too close to those kids (they sometimes bump into my strobes...). 17-35 would be perfect and make me more flexible, if reliable in a ikelite housing (d300).

cheers for now

marco

The 17-35 would be perfect if it would operate reliable in an Ikelite housing.

I'm about to buy the 17-35 for use with Ikelite housing, 8" dome + 5510.16. The lens dimensions are almost identical with the Tokina 11-16 rectilinear, which works fine in the housing with 5510.22, so I expect no problems. But maybe you know something I should know!

the rectilinear lens have different/less distortion than the fisheye 10-17.

the 11-16 toking has less distortion than the 10-24 or the 12-24.

I did not try the 10-24 underwater but did on the surface and returned it due to the distortion.

No-one has said what I expected to read: they are quite different lenses, the 12-24mm giving a moderately distorted wide-angle image on a cropped sensor, the 17-35mm behaving as fairly "tight" lens. I use a 17-55mm for fish, but I don't regard the 17mm end as wide-angle on a D200. The 12-24mm will give less edge sharpness, and is tricky in most domes, but you get much closer, so better colour and central sharpness in portraits. A full-frame 17-35mm would be a good lens, but I'd go for a wider option on a D300. My experience of Tokina says "Nikon glass preferred" for build quality and longevity...

Tim

I use a 17-55mm for fish, but I don't regard the 17mm end as wide-angle on a D200. [snip] A full-frame 17-35mm would be a good lens, but I'd go for a wider option on a D300. My experience of Tokina says "Nikon glass preferred" for build quality and longevity...

I'm planning to buy the 17-35 by Tamron (it's not Tokina), but exactly because it *IS* a different range from the 10-17 and 11-16 I own. At the small end (35mm) it should work pretty well for fish faces with crop sensor, and at the wide end still be useful for a school o' fish. It doesn't move much in/out in zooming, which I take to be A Good Thing when used with a dome.

Well that, and it's pretty cheap. And it IS a full-frame lens, so if I get that D700, I'll have a cool lens already.

But if someone knows a flaw in this plan, please speak up. I haven't found much by people using this lens, and don't know why.

I'm planning to buy the 17-35 by Tamron (it's not Tokina), but exactly because it *IS* a different range from the 10-17 and 11-16 I own. At the small end (35mm) it should work pretty well for fish faces with crop sensor, and at the wide end still be useful for a school o' fish. It doesn't move much in/out in zooming, which I take to be A Good Thing when used with a dome.

 

Well that, and it's pretty cheap. And it IS a full-frame lens, so if I get that D700, I'll have a cool lens already.

 

But if someone knows a flaw in this plan, please speak up. I haven't found much by people using this lens, and don't know why.

I'm not familiar with the Tamron, but the Nikon 17-35 is a great lens. I used it routinely with my D200 and now with my D700. You won't be sorry, but of course how much you use it depends on what you shoot.

I'm not familiar with the Tamron, but the Nikon 17-35 is a great lens. I used it routinely with my D200 and now with my D700. You won't be sorry, but of course how much you use it depends on what you shoot.

I'm sure you're right about the Nikon, but this isn't the time for me to spend 4 digits on a lens. I just bought DS-160s, $2K in car repairs, etc. So today I went out and bought a NIB Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 for a mere $200 from a place that is closing up. 77mm filter size, so I can use the same +2 diopter I already have for the Tokina 11-16. Can also use the same zoom gear as the Tokina, and the Ikelite port body for it is a very useful 5510.16. Probably a lot lighter lens too.

I don't pretend the image quality will compare with the $1500 (or whatever it is) Nikon, but I also don't want to pretend I'm anything but a duffer trying to get some nice photos. I could get a LOT better before I need that quality.

It's funny though -- I can get fussy about macro. At first I thought i was clever to get a secondhand Tamron 90mm, and it IS a very sharp lens. It wasn't long before I was wishing I had bought the Nikon 105 (will do that someday). I got tired of the lens hunting to autofocus with blennies and gobies...

BTW, loftus, that over-under shark photo you posted in the thread about the Tokina FE with teleconverter on FF... I love that shot. I'd be on cloud nine if I ever took one like that.

I'm sure you're right about the Nikon, but this isn't the time for me to spend 4 digits on a lens. I just bought DS-160s, $2K in car repairs, etc. So today I went out and bought a NIB Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 for a mere $200 from a place that is closing up. 77mm filter size, so I can use the same +2 diopter I already have for the Tokina 11-16. Can also use the same zoom gear as the Tokina, and the Ikelite port body for it is a very useful 5510.16. Probably a lot lighter lens too.

 

I don't pretend the image quality will compare with the $1500 (or whatever it is) Nikon, but I also don't want to pretend I'm anything but a duffer trying to get some nice photos. I could get a LOT better before I need that quality.

 

It's funny though -- I can get fussy about macro. At first I thought i was clever to get a secondhand Tamron 90mm, and it IS a very sharp lens. It wasn't long before I was wishing I had bought the Nikon 105 (will do that someday). I got tired of the lens hunting to autofocus with blennies and gobies...

 

BTW, loftus, that over-under shark photo you posted in the thread about the Tokina FE with teleconverter on FF... I love that shot. I'd be on cloud nine if I ever took one like that.

I'm sure the Tamron quality will be fine, I only wanted to point out that I could not speak about the lens - for all I know the quality is the same. Just commenting really about the 17-35 focal length which I think will be a nice complement to what you have.

Glad you like the silky shot.

Just commenting really about the 17-35 focal length which I think will be a nice complement to what you have.

Oh, I'm very glad to hear that! It was just a hunch combined with an un-ignorable local deal. I'll get to try it in the Red Sea next week!

BTW, this local dealer (Castle Photo in Sylvania, Ohio) has FOUR more Nikon-mount Tamron 17-35 lenses, NIB, and lots of interesting Canon and Minolta mount options -- but they are probably closing the doors after Saturday.

I'm searching my ... off for information about which lens to choose.

I own a D300 in a Ikelite housing and can't make up my mind about which lens to choose.

 

Mainly I use my uw gear to do portrets in indoor swimming pools.

 

Anyone having experience with Nikon's 17-35 f2.8 using a DX camera and a Ikelite housing?

Nikon's 12-24 would be a good option, but f4 might not be big enough.

I also don't know how Nikon's 10-24 is behaving below sealevel.

 

Could anyone help me out here?

 

Thanx

marco

In this situation I would buy the Sigma 1.8 - 20 mm!

Cheaper, Sharper, 1.8! and who has the time to zoom in this kind of situations?

No kidding, I use the lens on my D700 and I love it.

The minimal focus distance is also perfect, so for underwater use, just what you want.

I simply don’t know why wide angle “zoom” lenses with the little zoom capacity of 2 a so popular?

Ron.

who has the time to zoom in this kind of situations?

I use the zoom feature of my lenses routinely.

Unlike topside, it's a whole lot more difficult to move backwards or forwards to frame and compose underwater, particularly with moving subjects.