Is 29-35mm really that useful on a wide angle zoom?

Hi all,

I'm trying to decide on whether or not I'd use the extra reach of the Sony GM or Zeiss 16-35 over the Tamron 17-28… I've read all the articles I can find here, and have gone through the reviews in UW magazine (which were very helpful).

I shoot wildlife for a living and sell my prints as my main source of income.

I currently swap between the 14mm GM, 20mm G & 28mm Sony lenses, but would like to alter my rig to use one lens for most of my work and have the option to switch to the 14mm when I know I really need it.

I’ve used the 20mm as my lens of choice for almost 2 years now & love it. However, adding a little more versatility to my rig would be ideal. I moved to Isotta in order to use a smaller, more ergonomic system, so I'm mindful of not adding a huge extension ring to it. Hence why I've started with a 50mm that I can use with my current lenses.

I'm curious as to how many people out there actually use beyond 28mm with their 16-35mm? I find that when using the Sony 28mm I throw it into crop mode to video far away subjects as they approach, but I usually delete the first half of the clip as the contrast at this distance is non-existent underwater.

The Tamron would be really handy as I could fly it on my gimbal for land based work without having to re-balance as it's internally zooming. I believe the Tamron should be optically sound with the 50mm extension ring I have on my Isotta housing (using the 8" acrylic dome).

My second choice would be the Zeiss, as the GM is simply too heavy & I can't justify the price, when I don't really need f2.8 for a wide angle zoom, as I've got my primes for astro… However, I’d then have to buy another extension ring to fit the longer lens into the housing.

I’ve attached 3x low res images as examples of some of my work. The Eagle Rays are shot at 28mm & cropped in to about 0.8 of the original image. I don’t believe zooming into 35mm would have created a clearer image, as I’d still be shooting through 10 metres of water… Please correct me if I’m wrong… The turtle is captured at 14mm & un-cropped, there's a little distortion at the edges, which doesn't really bother me as I’ll crop in a touch when I go to print. The 3rd is shot at 20mm and un-cropped.

So... I'm wondering who out there really uses the 29-35mm range of their wide angle zooms?

I don't have anything to say about the lense recommandation, as I shoot with a compact camera, just came here to say that I really like the pictures you posted. Third one is awesome, congratz.

I would suggest it really depends on what you are shooting.  I use a 12-40 m43 zoom so 24-80 full frame equivalent and it's main use is for smaller fish and other such subjects, so I would suggest the 29-35 range would be used for fish that are smaller than your turtles etc but at the same distance.  If you don't shoot subjects like this then probably no - you don't need it. 

I have seen a few people on here recommend the tamron lens - Phil Rudin will likely chime in.  I also know people using the 16-35 f4 and they seem to be happy with it, though I understand the Sony 16-35 f4 doesn't seem to enjoy the same reputation the Canon and Nikon equivalents.

Hi David,

I have used both FE 16-35 F/4 and F/2.8 as well as FE 12-24 F/4 and F/2.8 all in 230mm dome ports. The FE 16-35 F/4 is the weakest of the bunch followed by the 12-24 F/4 as you would expect. Like you I shoot a lot of above water stuff and I have chosen the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8, 28-75mm F/2.8 II and 70-180mm F/2.8 as my "holy trinity" for field work. Tamron is less than half the cost of the Sony F/2.8 trinity and I just don't need the extra weight, cost, features of marginal coverage differences. 

You may have read my Tamron 17-28 review in issue #119 at UWPMAG.com and it has become my goto rectilinear zoom for models, animals larger than 6-8 inches splits and more. I also shoot the 12-24 F/2.8 and the 14mm F/1.8 all with the same 230mm port. I also use the Tamron with the Sea & Sea conversion lens described in my review.

The issue with the Tamron is support from your housing manufacture, in regard to a zoom gear and proper extension for the port. 

You may also want to consider a wet optic like the WWL-1B for your 28mm F/2 or for the FE 28-60 zoom. 

Regarding AOV with the Tamron I don't find myself missing the extra mm's of coverage on either end of the lens for my work.  

Thanks everyone for the quick responses. I think the Tamron will be the way to go. Means I sell my 28mm as I'm not happy with the video performance on it and I end up with an even more versatile lens :)