Primary use of this setup will be in N. Florida Caverns/Caves.
Any experienced input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Dominick
I would go with the 14-24mm f/2.8g ed as its the wider of the two and will allow you to get closer to your subject giving better colour, contrast, clarity etc. However, i think you should really consider a fisheye for underwater. It's a bit useless topside but i shoot 90% of my wide angle stuff underwater on fish eye. Allows me to get super close and still fit the whole subject in.
Good luck!
On land I love the 17-35 f2,8 for make reportage but underwater I use only fish lenses. For the cave I think that the 15mm sigma fish eye is better that the wide ange zooms.
Neither lens is very good behind a dome port.
The 16-35 f/4 is actually much better (and cheaper too).
Bear in mind all 3 will need a 9"dome to get the best results...
Adam
Wider is better for caves, especially where you can't back up because there's a wall in the way. I prefer the rectilinear lenses but you do need to look at performance behind a dome port. Maybe consider a wide prime rather than a zoom? For cave diving there is almost no reason to zoom - why not just swim closer?
16-35 f/4 hands down. I had to decide bw that and the 14-24 a while ago but saw that the 14-24 really struggled in corners for people and 16-35 was 2/3 the price.
Personally I'm happy - I find the 35mm end very useful at times and it takes filters. I use a 9" dome which I think is virtually required for wide rectilinear.
I do occasionally crave some wider coverage though. Not a huge fan of the easier-to-use fisheyes.
.jpg.857dbbfbdc4d79d9c6ebf7b4ba96ed1b.jpg)
