17-55DX

My camera rep ordered a 17-55 in my name. Went down to the store planning on buying a walk-around lens. Tested the 17-55, 18-70 and my 17-35 on my D100. We put the images up on a computer at 300%. The 17-55 was clearly the sharpest. Noticeably better than the 17-35. The 18-70 was clearly third. A good lens but not in the league on the other two lenses. Traded in my Nikon 18 mm to make the price a little more manageable.

Though I'm not planning on using this lens UW it would be good if I could set it up as a backup. Does anyone know if there is a Subal zoom gear for the lens and what extension ring to use with the Subal 9" dome port?

Thanks.

Funny you should ask that. Only last week I was investigating the same issue, having gotten my 17-55 a few weeks ago, and asking the same question on these boards.

So far what I've learned is probably not. At first I had a response from Mr Stepanek at Subal that he believed, without testing it,the large dome with a 70mm extension ring ought to work. He had just gotten in a 17-55 to look at. But my subal dealer measured and came to the conclusion that the zoom ring is too large for a zoom gear to fit it correctly. Whether Subal,now that it has the lens, is interested to make a different zoom arrangement, or if its even possible, remains to be seen.

Unfortunately I live too far from any housing dealers, to see exactly why/how it doesn't fit. In a picture I saw of the 17-35 next to the 17-55 they appeared to be very similar size, so the non-fit surprised me.

All that said, if you learn otherwise, please post the info.

Thanks

gloria

ps the 17-55 is a killer lens, yes?

17-35, 17-55, and 12-24 all measure a diameter of 9.5" for the zoom ring. I could get the zoom gear for the 17-35 on the 17-55. I could not get it to the inner edge of the zoom ring where it needs to be to be engage by the zoom knob without more effort than I want to make. The zoom gear for the 12-24 would appear to be the proper type, but it would be too much work to put on to test this. I have a broken gear that I adjust the size with duct tape. I did get this to work and zoom the lens in my Subal housing.

The lens just barely fits in the housing using my largest extension ring, the 66mm. This works with the 9" dome port. So you can use the lens in the housing and they should be able to design a zoom ring for it.

The 66mm ring appears a little short using the eyeball method of estimating the nodal point of the lens. I would estimate that a 70 to 75mm extension ring would be about the correct length.

This is the 17-35 and 17-55 side by side. The larger one is the 17-55.

Don't suppose you could tell us the listed price on the 17-55 could you?

Thanks

Not sure. Sammy's in Santa Barbara was selling it for I believe 1299$. I was on the list for about 2 months. When I got there to test it there were literally two customers waiting to see if I wouldn't take it.

I actually was not going to get it and buy the 18-70 instead. But it measured out as superior to my 17-35 and definitely better than the 18-70. With the faster F stop I ended up buying. In the short week I have used it, it seems like a great lens. I didn't get it for UW, I would like to use it as a backup in case of trouble. It does magnify twice that of the 17-35 at the long end. Too bad they didn't add macro capacity like the old 24-85 1:2 macro. It would have been about perfect then.

The 12-24 is a better lens for UW use. Much wider.

Thanks for the info Dave.

I kinda like the 17-55 idea for underwater though as it would be a great shark lens, 12-24 still kinda wide for majority of shark shots, unless feeding that is...the old 24-50 was about the best ever for that. Was kinda hoping this new one would replace it. But sounds kinda pricey for my budget. glad to hear it is tack sharp, i don't think i am all that interested in the 18-70 myself.

Guess i'll just stick with my 18-35, maybe not so sharp but i like the range

for the 17-55 what is the closest focus length at 55? Am wondering of it could answer a big gap in my current selection.

I have a correction to make on my previous email about the 17-55 in a subal. Mr. Stepanek wrote me today after I bugged him a bit, and said he has just built a zoom gear that will work with it properly, it would go into the FE-2 port with a 70mm extension ring.

I too bought the 17-55 mainly for land use but was thinking to get double duty, maybe in the future I will afford another $1K for the much-praised 12-24, but that will be a bit of time given this purchase and now, the dome port.

The documentation says it will focus to 1.2 ft at 35mm.

I have to agree, it is is one tack sharp fast lens. I wouldn't regret it even w/o the option of taking it underwater, I'd just have kept on playing with my 60mm macro. Being able to take 17-55 down is icing on the cake for me.

Gloria

Yes; close focus listed as 14.2" vs. 12" for the 17-35. But the 17-35 will focus closer than than listed. One advantage of the 17-55 vs. 17-35 is that max. mag. with the 17-35 is listed as 1/9th vs 1/5th with the 17-55.

12-24 is perfect for sharks. Click on my website under sharkfest. All taken with the 12-24. Though most shots were at the long end (24 mm end). Almost all of the really good shots were taken with the 12mm end. This is even though the water at Guadalupe Island is probably the clearest water in which you can see and photograph white sharks.

Guess it all depends on the size of the shark...And i did say unless there is bait involved...

I was more refering to reef sharks, just a wee bit smaller than whites.

However, i guess with the 12-24 being about 18-35mm on film camera that is pretty much what i use.

Would still like the extra up to 55mm for reefies.

Then again the following were all taken with Nikonos 15mm, can't ask for anything closer i suppose, i'm just greedy

http://bigblueimages.com/wbmvtas022.jpg

http://bigblueimages.com/wbmvtas010.jpg

http://bigblueimages.com/wbmvtas034.jpg

Dave, I love the way you have your photos framed on the website, how'd you do that?

I would be a bit careful about using a long extentension ring 70mm with this lens. When the 17-35mm was first released (2000) Subal recommended the 50mm ring + FE2. I know lots of people who were unhappy with corner sharpness with this lens in this configuration. And many of us now prefer to use the 17-35mm behind a shorter extentension ring 30mm. Obviously with a dioptre. IMO it would be worth testing a 50mm ring with the 17-55mm.

One argument against the 17-55mm is that if Nikon go FF with the D2X then the lens will not work, while the 17-35mm would. I see the justification for buying DX lenses like the 10.5mm (that I have) and the 12-24mm (that I don't) because they provided focal lengths than cannot be achieved without DX lenses. The 17-55mm does not offer focal lengths than cannot be achieved in other ways, and I would have reservations in buying a lens for my D100 that I may not be able to use on my next camera (D2X or SLR-N).

Alex

p.s. I agree that the 17-55mm is awesome glass.

Alex,

I couldn't agree more. The 17-35 is a fantastic lens and can be used on both film and DX sized sensors. Not to mention cough cough film... My money went to the 17-35.

The 17-55 offers an extra "20 mm" but will only work on DX sized sensor cameras. On the flip-side, the fact that Nikon is making a $1,300 lens that only works on DX sensor cameras really makes me think Nikon is sticking w/ that format for a while.

Cheers

James

Alex,

Thanks for the tip re a shorter extension ring, I will follow up on that. My thought for using my land 17-55 is to get some double mileage out of it (and see how well it does) 'till I can consider affording the wider 12 -24, which would use the same dome port.

On the DX not working for FF issue -- I understand the FF advantages and the dilemma especially for those of you who are pros & in the water all the time. I can imagine no small pressure -- and rationale -- to upgrade tools to further the art, (and in the digital world new tools do come fast .)

For unfortunates like me who have to slave in an office to fund a few trips a year, the calcluation is different. The S2 produces great images, offers me tons of room to grow, and is as much as I can comfortably afford, house, carry -- and manipulate on my aging mac. For me the downside of DX lenses not being compatible with FF or film is less relevant. When am I going back to film, or affording a redo of my whole rig to accomodate FF? Not soon. I expect to be happy with what I have for a long to come, even with the arrival of the next best thing, and the next, and the next.....oh woe!

Glo

All above true and good points. As far as a shorter ext. ring. Note that the 66 mm ext. ring is already shorter than optimal for this lens.

If figure between Fuji and Nikon their will be at least one more great 1.5x or 1.4x camera. This will put me at least 5 years into the future. This is how I rationalize getting the 17-55 and keeping my old 17-35.

The pictures are hosted by, and framed in my .MAC account. Simplest system to pictures up I can imagine. I resize my images in PS for the WEB. Then load them in iPhoto and then just click a button and a new web page is set up with the frame I choose.

Dave, Your web page and photos therein are great, I think I need to get a .mac account, i remember hearing about that when I bought my osx.

As far as 1.5 sensor cameras I agree they are here at least 5 years out; for my (recreational) purposes they also are relatively smaller, lighter, and cheaper while still good enough for any enlargement I might want.(I don't anticipate going into the highway billboard business.) If I am trying to magnify something that small in the frame than I'm better off trying again getting closer with my macro.

Despite that not everyone here sees the point , thats ok, I am much enjoying mine and trust the same for you!

Gloria

Thanks. Some may find .Mac expensive (regular price 99$/year); but there are introductory offers. I really like it and renewed mine for a second year.

With my F100 I use to carry the 24-85 1/2 macro as a back up to both my wide angle and macro lenses. When my large dome developed a fracture in Komodo I did the rest of my wide angle using this lens.

I hope to use the 17-55 in this manner; though it doesn't have the macro range. Having just been at a family gathering I can say it might be the one indispensable general purpose lens for the 1.5x cameras.

Hopefully; (though doubtfully as any internet rumor that sounds too good to be true is just a rumor) the rumor about Nikon introducing a 1.4 or 1.3x camera that can use DX lenses without vignetting will turn out to be correct.

Thanks for the .mac tip.

I've gone ahead and ordered the dome, extension ring & new zoom gear, which may make me an early guinea pig to see if the lens has utility under water, or not. If it gets here w/iin the month I'll get to try it soon in Roatan. I also figure that the parts exclusive to the 17-55 are less than $200 (i.e., domewise I'm be good for the eventual 12-24), so that will be the extent of the "error" if its just too klunky.

Meanwhile I've been asked to photograph a friend's wedding, I am thinking between my 60mm and now my 17-55 along with my tripod I should have what I need to get her some good wedding mementos.

Gloria

I kinda like the 17-55 idea for underwater though as it would be a great shark lens, 12-24 still kinda wide for majority of shark shots, unless feeding that is

I've never done shark photography but I recon I'd want about an 800mm

I went ahead and bought the 17-55 but am still waiting for Nexus to produce a zoom ring - a bit of a waste of money todate.