Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G AFS ED G

Has anybody tried this lens underwater? I was set on getting the 16-35 f4, but the reviews that this lens is receiving are amazing...

That is my primary wide angle lens. I really like it with my Aquatica housing, 8 inch dome and my D90. I think it does well at close focus/wide angle.

What zoom gear and extension ring do you use? I tried to get them from Aquatica but the lens is not in their lineup...

Hi there,

Is there anyone here on wetpixel who has some experience with the new AF-S NIKKOR 18–35mm f/3.5–4.5G ED?
Might this be a good replacement for the 16-35 f4?
Going trough the specs I see the f4 has 7 degrees FOV more on the wide side (107 vs 100 and 63 to 63), focus distance is the same at 0.28m.
Any thoughts on this new lens being a good underwater lens for (semi) wide angle?
looking forward to some opinions.

Cheers,

Max Daniël.

I bought one and will be trying it with my D800 and aquatica housing next month. Will report back when I do...

I bought one and will be trying it with my D800 and aquatica housing next month. Will report back when I do...

That would be great, I am going to get it for my D800 too.(if it is any good).

The reviews on it for topside are looking great, so I hope it performs well underwater too...

I can't see any reason why it should be much better than the 16-35mm. Compatibility with dome ports is always a problem with mid-range zooms, particularly with FX sensors: an underwater comparison is needed, and soon!

I certainly can't see it being so much better than the (more expensive) 16-35mm that it justifies replacing that lens...

I can't see any reason why it should be much better than the 16-35mm. Compatibility with dome ports is always a problem with mid-range zooms, particularly with FX sensors: an underwater comparison is needed, and soon!

 

I certainly can't see it being so much better than the (more expensive) 16-35mm that it justifies replacing that lens...

I don't want to replace the 16-35mm (which I don't have), I just want a cheaper ang lighter alternative, and this lens is half the price and half the weight.

 

I don't want to replace the 16-35mm (which I don't have), I just want a cheaper ang lighter alternative, and this lens is half the price and half the weight.

Same thing for me, if the quality is the same I will go for this lens instead of the 16-35 f4. Saves me money to spend on other stuff. That being said, if the f4 is still beter I will go for it in a blink

 

I don't want to replace the 16-35mm (which I don't have), I just want a cheaper ang lighter alternative, and this lens is half the price and half the weight.

maxman2402 mentioned the new lens as a replacement...

... hence my comment. I'm always wary of cheaper lenses in an optically challenging environment (underwater): field-testing is really important (it was surprising that the 16-35mm performs better than more expensive mid-range wide-angle Nikon lenses). The extra 2mm isn't insignificant underwater, either, because of the likely additional field of view.

I bought one and will be trying it with my D800 and aquatica housing next month. Will report back when I do...

could you test the lens and how are the results?