8 replies to this topic

[_savage]

Hi,

I am torn between two lenses, for both topside and underwater: the Canon 16-35 or the Canon 17-40. I currently use a Canon 7D body (cropped sensor). I do lean a slight bit towards the 16-35 because it's faster and seems to have less distortion. What's your experience?

Thanks
Jens

[msdeedee]

Hi,

I am torn between two lenses, for both topside and underwater: the Canon 16-35 or the Canon 17-40. I currently use a Canon 7D body (cropped sensor). I do lean a slight bit towards the 16-35 because it's faster and seems to have less distortion. What's your experience?

Thanks
Jens

16-35 especially if you grow into full frame :-))DD Sat Nam

[divegypsy]

Although I shoot Nikon and have no experience with either lens, with the 16-35mm you gain 1mm on the wide end, which I would feel is relatively insignificant in most situations. With the 17-40mm you gain 5mm on the long end, which is enough to make a difference, and might make that lens better for some kinds of fish shots, like sharks. F2.8 vs f4? Your viewfinder will be a bit brighter with the 2.8 lens, but with the ISO flexibility of many newer cameras (like my D700) dropping to f4 makes less shooting difference than it used to. As to which gives you the better image quality behind a dome, I can't say.

Fred

Although I shoot Nikon and have no experience with either lens, with the 16-35mm you gain 1mm on the wide end, which I would feel is relatively insignificant in most situations. With the 17-40mm you gain 5mm on the long end, which is enough to make a difference, and might make that lens better for some kinds of fish shots, like sharks. F2.8 vs f4? Your viewfinder will be a bit brighter with the 2.8 lens, but with the ISO flexibility of many newer cameras (like my D700) dropping to f4 makes less shooting difference than it used to. As to which gives you the better image quality behind a dome, I can't say.

Fred

[Cary Dean]

I own the 16-35II. Great lens but I wouldn't hesitate to use the 17-40 as it is also a very nice lens.
I'd say that because of the smaller filter thread size 77mm vs 82mm you might be better off with the 17-40.
I use the 16-35 UW and had some misinformation and a bit of frustration before I was able
to sort the right port/extension combo for the best images.

Since you use the 7D I'd consider the Tokina 10-17mm. Awesome lens for cropped sensor cameras and the port
solution is easier too.

[Tom_Kline]

When faced with the same question I came up with the following IQ ranking from reading many comments on the WWW:
The 16-35L is the poorest (but OK stopped down; the f/2.8 maximum aperture may have been intended for focusing), the 17-40L is better, while the 16-35II L is the best.

There seem to be many happy UW shooters using the 16-35II. Nevertheless I found the minimum focus distance to be not close enough for my needs so got the Sigma 20/1.8 and Sigma 28/1.8 lenses in EF mount instead. They both focus very close. I already had the Sigma 20/1.8 in Nikon mount and found it worked well for my needs.

[_savage]

Since you use the 7D I'd consider the Tokina 10-17mm. Awesome lens for cropped sensor cameras and the port
solution is easier too.

I do have the Tokina 10-17mm and it worked fine so far underwater. However, from personal experience it makes for a rather poor topside lens due to its strong chromatic aberration in high contrast shots; I was rather disappointed by it to be honest. That's why I am now looking for a wide angle lens which I can use both underwater and topside, but perhaps I ought to keep separate lenses for both environments...

Jens

[Cary Dean]

but perhaps I ought to keep separate lenses for both environments...
Jens

Not a bad idea....

[racetan1]

Not a bad idea....

I've been hearing rumors that the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens is being discontinued. Might need to have another lens...

[Cary Dean]

I've been hearing rumors that the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens is being discontinued. Might need to have another lens...

Maybe an updated version....? One can hope