Glass for the 7D?

Soon enough you'll end up with this lot. This is what I consider my standard travelling set of underwater lenses (for FF Nikon - so not relevant here) - took this picture yesterday for something else and thought it looked pretty cool:

Alex

Nice collection Alex! I'm not a Nikon user, so a lot of them are unfamiliar, care to name them all?

What's the blue tape on the longer lens for as well?

Gudge

Are you using the Sigma behind a dome or flat port? I'd be tempted to try the 17-70 behind a dome as it likely won't need a diopter since min. focus is only 8"

Stu

I have both these lenses. The results I've achieved backup the reviews I've read, the 17-70 is a much better lens. As for reliability, my 17-70 has had way more use than the 17-85 and has never missed a beat. The 17-85 on the other hand is having issues with autofocus and needs to go back to Canon for repair.

Hi Tim

 

For your midrange zooms, let me try and clear it up a bit (in my opinion anyway).

 

The problem with the first three you listed underwater is they don't focus very close, and I'm yet to hear of anyone doing well with any of them on a crop sensor body. The Sigma, being a macro, focuses nice and close (I shoot mine without a dioptre), and has pretty decent quality images. I'd say this is probably my most used lens underwater these days, although it can't beat either a good fish eye or macro at either end.

 

The build quality on the 17-55 is only less than the L quality lenses, however you'll find it's better than the other two you mentioned, and (with the exception maybe of the new 15-85) better than most of Canon's non-L zooms. It is, however, a large lens, and not one you'd use in the water. Fantastic on land of course, most regard it as the best option for a Canon crop body (image quality beats the 17-40, just look at some of the reviews around).

 

Out of curiosity, what housings are you looking at? I had a look at a Nauticam D90 housing today, and was very impressed. Can't wait to see their 7D housing (although I'm sticking to Aquatica).

 

I've been shooting with my 7D underwater for the last two weeks (still need to put up some pics!), and am loving it, as I'm sure you will too!

 

Ryan.

Ryan, what housing are you shooting your 7D in?

I'm also in the market for a mid-range zoom and find this thread very helpful. Thank you all for your input.

Bo

At the moment it's in a modified Aquatica 5d housing. Just waiting for the Aquatica 7D housing to get here.

Stu, Ive got my Sigma bhind an 8" dome and it works fine without a dioptre. Some of

my other lenses I do need one, but not this.

Thanks Aussie!

At the moment it's in a modified Aquatica 5d housing. Just waiting for the Aquatica 7D housing to get here.

 

Stu, Ive got my Sigma bhind an 8" dome and it works fine without a dioptre. Some of

my other lenses I do need one, but not this.

Gudge

 

Are you using the Sigma behind a dome or flat port? I'd be tempted to try the 17-70 behind a dome as it likely won't need a diopter since min. focus is only 8"

The 4" dome is an interesting point. This might be housing dependent as upon a quick look I couldn't find a Zen 4" port for Aquatica. They may exist, and I'd be greatful if someone can point one out. I'm interesting in small dome for tec dives as it's more manageable. The Aquatica 6" doesn't seem small enough to justify buying it when I have an 8"

At the moment it's in a modified Aquatica 5d housing. Just waiting for the Aquatica 7D housing to get here.

 

Stu, Ive got my Sigma bhind an 8" dome and it works fine without a dioptre. Some of

my other lenses I do need one, but not this.

Sigma just updated their 17-70 with Optical Stabilization, but the OS takes away some of it's macro capability (new minimum focus is 22cm and 1:2.7 macro).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09120402...OSHSM.asp#specs

Good compromise for our use underwater behind a dome?

Bo

I just ordered mine from Reef Photo.

Hey Gudge

What did you order? Is it the little dome for your 10-17mm? You going to put your new 7D in a Subal?

Steve

What did you order? Is it the little dome for your 10-17mm?

You going to put your new 7D in a Subal?

Congrats partner!

Can't wait to see what you can do with it.

Steve

The opportunity to shoot w/a macro with 10-17 and 4" Zen would immediately add another dimension to my photography and, I guess, will have a relevance in my lower viz home waters.

May I ask what differences I would see between the 8" and 4" ports when used with the 10-17 and / or 17 - 40?

Thanks guys. Tim

My first dome was a 6" and I sold that an upgraded to an 8" dome. With rectilinear lenses such as my 17-70 and 12-24 corner sharpness was much better with the 8" dome. With the 10-17 fisheye I couldn't see any difference in the results. From my results and what I've read there will be no problems with using the 10-17 behind a 4" dome (unless you want to shoot over/under shots). However, I think you will have a few problems using the 17-40 behind a 4" dome as it's the bigger dome size the better with rectilinear lenses.

Small domes are not always better. They have advantages, but they have disadvantages too, even with fisheyes.

I might try and borrow of the Zen Domes in the next couple of months for a review.

Alex

Nice collection Alex! I'm not a Nikon user, so a lot of them are unfamiliar, care to name them all?

What's the blue tape on the longer lens for as well?

The image shows (back left to front right) Sigma 28-70mm, Nikon 105mm VR, Sigma 150mm, Nikon 17-35mm, Nikon 60mm AF-S, Sigma 15mm FE, Nikon 16mm FE, Nikon 5T, Nikon 1.7x TC AF-S, Kenko 1.5x TC, Canon 500D. These are what I generally use on FX. I also have a 20mm Nikon, but I only dived it once last year.

This was taken with the 20mm:

The blue tape is to stop a switch moving. The lens used to have black tape on it, but this came off at some point and this blue tape was the only one available on the liveaboard.

Small domes are not always better. They have advantages, but they have disadvantages too, even with fisheyes.

 

I might try and borrow of the Zen Domes in the next couple of months for a review.

 

Alex

In specific reference to the Tok 10-17, what are the disadvantages? I'm asking out of ignorance to knowledge of dome optical physics.

Simplistically, I always thought that if the curvature of the dome was positioned parallel to the same curvature of the lens

[port~ (( ~lens]

you'd have minimal distortion, no matter what the size of the dome (of course the lens needs to be able to close-focus on the virtual image created by the dome). Is my simplistic thinking totally wrong?

Please make me understand the factors involved, since I'm in process to house my 7D with a Tok10-17 (and perhaps a future Sigma 17-70) behind small 6" Ikelite dome and a 8" Oceanic dome.

Thank you for any insight on this.

Bo

I have both these lenses. The results I've achieved backup the reviews I've read, the 17-70 is a much better lens. As for reliability, my 17-70 has had way more use than the 17-85 and has never missed a beat. The 17-85 on the other hand is having issues with autofocus and needs to go back to Canon for repair.

Question for you Gudge,

How is the Sigma 17-70 holding up with the 7D?

Reason I'm asking is that some claim that the 7D with it's 18Mp sensor requires high performance lenses (see this 7D review http://blog.gsmarena.com/canon-eos-7d-revi...ridging-a-gap/)

Can you perhaps post comparison picture taken on your 7D with the Sigma versus the Canon lenses?

I's be very much interested in your input, since I'm looking for a midrange zoom for underwater use, and the Sigma is almost half of the Canon in cost. I have had positive experience with Sigma many years ago and have several Sigma lenses, although I need to send my 28-300 in for repair.

Thank you for any input to the Sigma 17-70 on the 7D.

Bo

How is the Sigma 17-70 holding up with the 7D?

 

Reason I'm asking is that some claim that the 7D with it's 18Mp sensor requires high performance lenses (see this 7D review http://blog.gsmarena.com/canon-eos-7d-revi...ridging-a-gap/)

With regards to the review you've posted in the link, this is probably the paragraph you are worried about:

When it comes to dynamics and resolved detail, the EOS 7D is quite demanding on the choice of lenses. Actually, anything below the best in class will limit its output resolution. With lower quality lenses, you may not be able to notice the advantage of the higher megapixel count. But don’t get us wrong – you would get pretty decent results from cheaper lenses as well.

I think the important thing to take in from this is that using a lower quality lens with the 7D is not going to give you bad results, there's just a possibility that the lens may not realise the full potential of what the camera is capable of resolution wise.

Can you perhaps post comparison picture taken on your 7D with the Sigma versus the Canon lenses?

Sigma 17-70

Canon 17-85

What do we know about this Zen company? I love the idea of the smaller dome with the 10-17 if it works. Their website is just barely marginal (maybe it's under construction) and the only seller listed there is Ryan.

Has anyone seen actual images taken with their equipment? I'm guessing the new small dome is glass but Ryan's website doesn't say unless I missed it.

Love the idea,

Steve

No, 17-85 is broken and I'm going diving. Here's a couple of reviews for you to read:

 

Sigma 17-70

Canon 17-85

Thank you for the input and have a great time diving, I wished I lived in the southern hemisphere this time of year (my local diving about to get messed up with a rare winter storm moving in this weekend).

Bo