I do not think that a 27 - 47 lens is all that bad a tool in the toolbox. I have enjoyed using the 24 - 70 for many images in the past but it is extremely heavy to travel with and requires a lot of extension and bigger dome than this re-design, so Harald's compact solution does seem a bit tidier.
Until that time, and in the interest of nostalgia and frugality, the notion of adapting the existing 20 year old "20-35 Zoom" is tempting. I was simply hoping one of the Wetpixel audience has actual digital images from a conversion to share with those of us curious but sitting on the fence before making a substantial investment in having the lens adapted by Seacam.
People have converted them. So I also look forward to hearing from them. I am sure you will produce some excellent stuff with the 20-35mm if you adapt it.
I am not sure if the design is the same as the 13mm to allow it to be easily cut in half. But that would be very neat if possible, with a small front element and easy to make the zoom work on a gear I suspect.
Rumours are that Nikon will launch a new 24-70mm soon (I don’t have any insider info, just rumour).
There seems to be a post missing in the conversation above?
The 20-35mm can be converted, but I don't know if it can be in the same way at the Seacam conversion for the 13mm (by cutting it in half and turning it into a lens and optical port). I know people have used it with an adaptor on housings - but that is not possible on all housings because the zoom gear hits some housings.
Furthermore, I was very interested in using my 20-35mm again, until it was pointed out to me that it is actually a 27-47mm - which is a range that is not that wide, nor that troublesome behind a dome. So I feel the return is not worth getting my 20-35mm lens converted.
This has led me down the optical port route for rectilinear wide angles - which I am finding is giving me the same level of image quality advantage over a dome port as the RS 13mm does.
Although this is still work in progress and I am yet to get all the lenses working that I want. But if and when I do, it will give me the same optical advantage of RS lenses, with any land lens. I know that Nauticam are also working on developing such a port - but also just as a proof on concept at this stage.
Nice write up - it is always valuable to show how the camera is usually the least important component of an underwater system. UW lenses, lighting and even housings are always more important. If I had a penny for all the “I have a D800 and housing, but don’t want to spend the money on a fisheye or decent dome..” emails I get - I could afford a new dome!
My first system was a Nikon D100 with all the lenses, Aquatica housing, and Sea & Sea YS 250 strobes. Then on to the Nikon D200, D7000, Olympus OMD EM5 & Nauticam housing, Sony A7, Sony RX100 and now the Sony RX100II.
From that list I suspect this won’t be your last system either!
Feel it is an underwhelming upgrade. Very little really of value for me. Except that I needed the D7200 Raw converter. I guess since Adobe already have our money through the CC system there isn’t really any need for them to make a product that makes you want to upgrade. Pity.