Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

If you could only afford one lens, which one?

Nikon 14-24 Nikon 17-35

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 silverhippi

silverhippi

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:50 PM

I am putting together a full-frame system with Ikelite and Nikon D800.

 

I can really only afford one lens at the moment and am torn between:

 

nikon af-s nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8g ed

 

https://www.bhphotov...or_14_24mm.html

 

 

and

 

nikon nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 d ed if

 

https://www.bhphotov...or_17_35mm.html

 

 

Primary use of this setup will be in N. Florida Caverns/Caves.

 

Any experienced input would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Dominick



#2 Grantjpthomas

Grantjpthomas

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland / Malaysia
  • Interests:Scuba diving, Free diving, Travelling, Conservation and Capturing it all on camera!

Posted 19 October 2017 - 08:05 PM

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! 


Grant Thomas

(PADI instructor on Tioman Island, Malaysia)

Personal webpage www.facebook.com/GrantThomasPhotos


#3 cristiansub

cristiansub

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sestri Levante - Genova
  • Interests:Professional Photographer
    for work: still life, advertising and wedding.
    for fun: underwater, reportage.

Posted 25 October 2017 - 03:59 AM

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.


____________________________________
www.cristianumili.com
Sestri Levante - Italy

#4 adamhanlon

adamhanlon

    Harbor Seal

  • Admin
  • 2225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, UK

Posted 25 October 2017 - 02:17 PM

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


Adam Hanlon-underwater photographer and videographer
Editor-wetpixel
web | Flickr | twitter | Linkedin | Facebook


#5 errbrr

errbrr

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 26 October 2017 - 02:28 PM

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?



#6 Undertow

Undertow

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 02 December 2017 - 12:58 PM

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.

 

Chris







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Nikon 14-24, Nikon 17-35