Nikon 24-85/2.8-4 vs. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5

I am shortly going to buy a housing for a Nikon D90 (either Aquatica or Subal) and am looking at lens choices. I already have a Nikon 105mm macro lens (non VR) and will certainly house this. In addition, I want an "all-purpose" or "opportunist" lens capable of taking reasonable fish pictures (e.g. grouper at a cleaning station) but also with a reasonable "macro" capability (e.g. 1/2 life size). I am not particularly interested in wide-angle at this point.

The two lenses that look appropriate for this are the Nikon 24-85mm/F2.8-4 and the Sigma 17-70mm/F2.8-4.5. These both have the macro capability I am lookngi for.

In addition to your general opinions of these two lenses, I have the following questions:

1) Can either lens be housed behind a flat port? I am not worried about losing the wide-angle capability, and can even tolerate increased aberrations within reason. Is it technically possible (i.e. will they fit and will the edge of the port block part of the image at the wide end)? If anyone has any experience of doing this with Aquatica or Subal housings I would welcome details of how it can be done. I am trying to save money here, by using the flat port I need for the 105 macro for the zoom lens as well (with suitable extension).

2) What is the minimum working distance of these two lenses when operating at longest focal length (as measured from the front of the port, not the sensor plane). I am a bit concerned that the Sigma might have to get very close to the subject to get maximum magnification. This would make lighting difficult and also spook the subjects.

Many thanks

I am shortly going to buy a housing for a Nikon D90 (either Aquatica or Subal) and am looking at lens choices. I already have a Nikon 105mm macro lens (non VR) and will certainly house this. In addition, I want an "all-purpose" or "opportunist" lens capable of taking reasonable fish pictures (e.g. grouper at a cleaning station) but also with a reasonable "macro" capability (e.g. 1/2 life size). I am not particularly interested in wide-angle at this point.

 

The two lenses that look appropriate for this are the Nikon 24-85mm/F2.8-4 and the Sigma 17-70mm/F2.8-4.5. These both have the macro capability I am lookngi for.

 

In addition to your general opinions of these two lenses, I have the following questions:

 

1) Can either lens be housed behind a flat port? I am not worried about losing the wide-angle capability, and can even tolerate increased aberrations within reason. Is it technically possible (i.e. will they fit and will the edge of the port block part of the image at the wide end)? If anyone has any experience of doing this with Aquatica or Subal housings I would welcome details of how it can be done. I am trying to save money here, by using the flat port I need for the 105 macro for the zoom lens as well (with suitable extension).

 

2) What is the minimum working distance of these two lenses when operating at longest focal length (as measured from the front of the port, not the sensor plane). I am a bit concerned that the Sigma might have to get very close to the subject to get maximum magnification. This would make lighting difficult and also spook the subjects.

 

Many thanks

Get the Sigma 17-70mm, at least it will zoom from wide to macro seamlessly, the Nikon 24-85 need to be manually switched from normal to macro mode and that switch is inaccessible underwater.

I’m not too warm with the flat port option idea, I did try it out a while ago and remember being unimpressed, the lens coverage suffered way too much, and i basically ended up with a poor version of a macro lens, I would consider using a 6” dome port and its extension (the extension could potentially be used with the 105mm.

Cheers.

Get the Sigma 17-70mm, at least it will zoom from wide to macro seamlessly, the Nikon 24-85 need to be manually switched from normal to macro mode and that switch is inaccessible underwater.

I’m not too warm with the flat port option idea, I did try it out a while ago and remember being unimpressed, the lens coverage suffered way too much, and i basically ended up with a poor version of a macro lens, I would consider using a 6” dome port and its extension (the extension could potentially be used with the 105mm.

 

Cheers.

OK, the Sigma 17-70 seems quite popular on this forum - my one concern was that the distance of closest focus when using it for "macro" might be too close for comfort.

I didn't realise that the macro switch on the Nikon 24-85 actually prevented focussing to infinity. That definitely rules it out. I thought the macro switch just enabled the full focussing range, in which case one could just leave it permanently switched to macro (and put up with possible slow focussing/hunting).

On the flat port option, I fully accept that this would be a compromise (and hope that Santa might bring me a dome port in the future!) but I don't think I can justify the extra expense of a dome port at this stage. When you tried this out, did you do so with the Sigma 17-70. That at least would confirm that it is technically possible.

Many thanks for your response.

Yes I have the Sigma 17-70mm HSM personnaly and like it a lot as a scouting lens. I did try it with a mcro port and extension, I don't remember which at the time. but it fitted and I would start being nice right now, cause you'll want this doma ASAP

I use the 24-85 extensively on my full frame D700. And like it a lot! I use it behind a small dome because in the 35mm-85mm macro mode it can focus very close to the front of the port itself. The smaller "macro dome" allows me to light subjects that I would not be able to light with even the Seacam wideport which is about a 6" dome in a mount with shade that is physically about 8" in diameter. The "macro dome" is same diameter as Seacam extension rings, about 4.5" in diameter.

Because the 24-85mm is internal focus, it exhibits what is called "breathing". The lens becomes "wider" as you focus closer. I feel that at very near distances, the wide end, nominally 35mm is more like 28mm. The small diameter "macro dome" brings the virtual image in closer, forcing the lens to focus closer and thus become wider.

This combination is so versatile it has become my most frequently used lens. I can shoot quite small subjects if I can get close enough. Yet also shoot fairly large subjects, like sharks, at more normal distances.

I'll attach a few shots. The first is of a dwarf lionfish on a tree branch in the water. Shot recently in Bali. With the wide-angle coverage, you not only see the dwarf lionfish, you also see a lot of the dead tree and additional fish in the background.

The second shot is of a small seahorse in Edithburgh, South Australia. The seahorse is a small species H. breviceps. Only a bit over an inch or so high.

The third shot is of a spotted wobbegong shark, which was at least a meter and a half in length.

Admittedly. these shots are with an FX sensor, not the DX sensor. But they give some idea of the versatility of the lens.

Fred

So in macro mode, the 24-85 has its zoom limited to 35-85. I think that is a serious enough limitation to put me off.

I think I will go for the 17-70 with a flat port initially but upgrading to a dome port later. I was concerned that the flat port would cause vignetting (i.e. cut off the edges of the picture) at the wide end. It sounds as though that is not an issue.

I am still a little worried that the minimum focussing distance will bring the subject very close to the front of the port and hence make it difficult to light. Does anyone have any opinions about that?

Thanks

I got the Sigma 17-70 lens this spring and used it in Palau in June. I found the 70mm end to be okay for macro when I found something that needed it. You cannot expect what a dedicated macro lens would do (Like the 60 or 105). But it is nice to have the range when you want. I have attached a link to a shot I took of a pixie hawkfish -(cropped a little in post). There is also a blue water shot of a crinoid in the Palau set that is at 70mm with this lens. There are some others in there too. I did not have problems with lighting at the 70 end. I also used it on the wrecks there and had some good results with 2 strobes. But I did find I had to crop some of the 70mm shots in post just a little.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pammurph/4753...57624277858505/

Let us know what you decide and post some pics - DiverPam

hi folks...considering now getting a 24-85 as a temp. substitute until i get my wide angle back ( i know it isnt a sub for wide angle but i am in a place with limited accessibilitiy and this is one of my only options...)

just want to know if i can use it behind an 8inch dome port - i have a sea & sea port mounted on aquatica housing for nikon d200 (with adapter of course) , also have a 60mm macro port, but would rather use the dome port- trying to work with what i`ve got!

thanks for your help

Yes it will fit and work with the 8" port, problem is the zoom gear, we don't have one for it. so you will have to preset the lens to a specific focal lenght. Sorry about that, there is just not enough demmand for this lens underwater, most people end up using the Sigma 17-70mm in this focal range.

Hey Alan,

As others here have said, you'd really want a dome port for the 17-70.

As a side thought, if you are about to spend a considerable amount of money on a housing, have you thought about looking at the D7000 instead? Just a thought.

Hey Alan,

 

As others here have said, you'd really want a dome port for the 17-70.

 

As a side thought, if you are about to spend a considerable amount of money on a housing, have you thought about looking at the D7000 instead? Just a thought.

Alex, I can see Allen's OP point of view. As much as I love the Nikon D7000, there is still a substantial chunk of cash between the two camera/housing packages, if I take the Nikon D90 (body +/- 800.00) and the Aquatica AD90 housing (retail 1899.00) I come up to +/- 2700.00, while doing the same with the Nikon D7000 ( +/- 1200.00) and its Aquatica AD7000 housing (retail 2499.00) would bring it to +/- 3700.00. its more or less a 1000.00 difference, that also is a considerable amount of money and that is including the D90 body which I suspect Allen has already (if so, make that 1800.00 difference), that gets you the Sigma 17-70, dome... and the Nikon D90 is very much a good performer by today standards, especially at the going price of the camera body these days.

I calculated using the retail price the Aquatica AD90 in the equation (as per Alen's original post) versus the Aquatica AD7000 to keep the comparision fair and did not include ports, gears and extension as they would be needed in both case, I did not calculate others brand of housings as it is not for me to do so.

As I posted earlier, I like the Nikon 24-85mm lens a lot. As you can see from the range of subject sizes in the pictures I posted, the lens is quite versatile. And despite what someone else (probably someone who never saw the Nikon lens) may have said, in the 35-85mm macro mode the lens does focus to infinity. But to get the close focusing, you need to be in the macro mode and need to do htis prior to the dive.

I don't think this lens makes as much sense for the cropped sensor DX cameras, as does the Sigma 17-70mm. On the FX Nikons, it is really a nice mid-range lens.

If your port is big enough in diameter, there is no reason you couldn't use it behind a flat glass. But doing so would cost you some of the wide-angle close up capability. The larger diameter of the flat glass is needed because the lens gets longer as you zoom from wide-angle to telephoto.

Fred

Alex, I can see Allen's OP point of view. As much as I love the Nikon D7000, there is still a substantial chunk of cash between the two camera/housing packages, if I take the Nikon D90 (body +/- 800.00) and the Aquatica AD90 housing (retail 1899.00) I come up to +/- 2700.00, while doing the same with the Nikon D7000 ( +/- 1200.00) and its Aquatica AD7000 housing (retail 2499.00) would bring it to +/- 3700.00. its more or less a 1000.00 difference, that also is a considerable amount of money and that is including the D90 body which I suspect Allen has already (if so, make that 1800.00 difference), that gets you the Sigma 17-70, dome... and the Nikon D90 is very much a good performer by today standards, especially at the going price of the camera body these days.

 

I calculated using the retail price the Aquatica AD90 in the equation (as per Alen's original post) versus the Aquatica AD7000 to keep the comparision fair and did not include ports, gears and extension as they would be needed in both case, I did not calculate others brand of housings as it is not for me to do so.

Good point, if it were me though, I think I'd be wishing I'd made the initial investment in the D7000.

Alan, I do know someone UK based who is selling a used Aquatica D90 housing to upgrade to D7000 if you'd like to PM me I can send you their details.

I just noticed that Alan posted this originally back in August!

As others here have said, you'd really want a dome port for the 17-70.

OK Alex.

The Nauticam port chart gives 6" dome port or 8.5" dome port for the Sigma 10-70.

What about a 4" dome port? (Zen Underwater, with a D90 in Nauticam housing)

Would it be possible? Which extension with?

OK Alex.

The Nauticam port chart gives 6" dome port or 8.5" dome port for the Sigma 10-70.

 

What about a 4" dome port? (Zen Underwater, with a D90 in Nauticam housing)

Would it be possible? Which extension with?

As far as I'm aware, because it is a rectilinear lens, it would not be suitable for the minidome although (caveat) I have never tried personally.

As far as I'm aware, because it is a rectilinear lens, it would not be suitable for the minidome although (caveat) I have never tried personally.

A while back I put my 17-70 (OS version) behind the 100mm Zen. Nope, it dosn't work well...