17-35 zoom?

[vladimir]

I am using a D70 in a Subal housing. I have only used prime lenses thus far; the 105, the 20, and the 10.5. I am headed to Cocos and I think I need the 17-35 zoom. What do I need to know about ports and diopters? I have a fisheye (fe2?), the smaller dome, and a flat port for the 105. Should I save ~$800 and buy the 18-35? I am generally not too price sensitive, but that's quite a spread. Any other thoughts? Thanks for any input.

 

[lifeisfullofgooddives]

what are you buying the 17-35 for ?

 

[Mariozi]

It is a good lens to topside use. But I am pretty shure that at Cocos all you need is the 10.5 and the 105 in that order!!!

 

[jcclink]

The 12-24 might be better than the 17-35 at Cocos since its mostly all WA there. Optically the 17-35 is better I think. The 12-24 is a little tricky to set up properly thou. I wouldn't spend too much time on the small stuff - you'd surely miss something big (like the whale shark ?)

 

[vladimir]

Thanks guys. Mariozi, I just browsed your gallery--very cool shots.

The 12-24 is a little tricky to set up properly thou.

If I get the 12-24, what else do I need to properly set it up?

 

[dbh]

here is Subal's port / lens compatibility chart:

http://www.subal.com/en/portselection/lenses.php?markennummer=3

I never liked the 12-24. I sold it after 2 trips and bought a 17-35. However, I have not used the 17-35 underwater yet.

The Sigma 15mm FE is also a sharp and fast focusing lens. All of the WA in this gallery were shot using it:

http://www.myunderwaterworld.com/GC07.htm

Dave

 

[RonFrank]

Unless you want the 17~35mm for topside use, I'd skip the expense UW. First it's big, heavy, and expensive. It's designed for FF use, so overkill for digital especially when you generally want more than f2.8 DOF, and you will likely be using a strobe.

The 18~35mm is ALMOST as good optically even at FF, but with digital the difference is almost impossible to detect. I have both lenses.

That said IMO the Sigma 17~70 f2.8~4 is a better choice UW. It has a Macro capability to 1:2.3 which can come in REALLY handy.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=419571&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

If you are sticking with FF lenses for a reason, this is NOT a FF lens. However IMO it's the best lens for overall general UW shots currently available even if I do NOT use one!

The 12~24mm is another VERY good choice for UW use, and topside as well.

Lens choices are always tough, but you could get the Sigma 17~70, and either the Tokina, or Nikon 12-24 for less combined than the cost of the 17~35mm alone!

 

[matt215]

I'm going to cocos as well in about a week. I bought a 17-40 and I have been told by several people that this is all you'll need.

 

[RonFrank]

I'm going to cocos as well in about a week. I bought a 17-40 and I have been told by several people that this is all you'll need.

I guess the 17~40mm is all you need IF you don't need WA or Macro. 25.5mm is hardly what I'd consider wide, but then again I'm not sure what camera you are using. Assuming Nikon than something in the flavor of the 12~24mm or the 10.5mm is what a lot of people like to shoot on good vis days.

Another favorite is the 60mm or 105mm macro.

 

[jarhed]

I shoot a D200 and have a 16mm FE for my primary WA lens. I also want a little more flexability and have been looking at WA zooms for a while now. I had all but decided on the 12-24 when the Tokina 10-17 FE zoom came out and has been getting great reviews. Over at wetpixel.com many guys have posted results and it looks like a real winner at almost half the price of the 12-24.

Just another option to consider...
John