Alex_Mustard

I think it makes a lot of sense to have a spare camera body. Especially if you are going on important or once in a life time trips. Less so if you dive mainly at home. 

For the record I've never owned a spare body for any of the Nikon SLRs I have used. And never had a flood or been let down by one (and done 1000s of dives, shot a handful of books and hundred of magazine features).

But I have seen many other people flood theirs. Especially newer underwater photographers are most vulnerable to making the mistakes in housing preparation that lead to most floods. If you look at the problem logically, it is impossible to argue against the sense in having a spare. 

At f/4 the 16-35 isn't bad, but if I'm going to shoot at 16mm the Sigma FE or Nikon 16FE f2.8 is the lens of choice. Zoomed out to 35mm it becomes f5.6 and AF was very unreliable in Mexico, except near the surface is fairly bright conditions.

Jack

Two quick points for clarification. First the angle of coverage of the 16-35mm at 16mm is about 110 degrees, corner to corner. The Nikon 16mm fisheye and Sigma 15mm are 180 degrees - which is a huge amount wider than the widest the 16-35mm can cover.

The Nikon 16-35mm has a constant maximum aperture throughout its range - of f/4. The Tokina 10-17mm ranges from f/3-5 to f/4.5 as you zoom in. The Nikon 16-35mm uses the more advance AFS AF, which is build in the lens. The Tokina uses the AF-D protocol, powered from the camera body.

Alex 

I think the 16-35 is a nice lens, Alex's shots in clear bright conditions show it's capabilities well. But is very slow to use uw in even moderate viz, especially zoomed out to 30-35mm for large animals. I just could not catch focus in Mexico, even in moderate conditions. 

It was clear, but it was actually very dark when I took the picture above. 1/50 @ ISO 1000. Although it was nicer underwater than in the wind and snow above. Here is a video from that day:

I used the 16-35mm in awful viz (less than 1m) on my last dive and was fine. 

https://www.facebook...&type=1

But I do accept that an f/4 lens will focus less well than an f/2.8. But I think the 16-35mm focused much more reliably than the Tokina 10-17mm, for example.

Alex

Nice. I've seen them in Raja Ampat, although never when diving with a wide angle lens - as only at night. 

Alex

I have both the 17-35mm and 16-35mm lenses - and since I've had the 16-35mm, I've not taken the 17-35mm underwater. I think the 16-35mm has some barrel distortion, which is perhaps the reason why it works a little better behind a dome. 

The 14-24mm is more problematic still. It can work in some situations, but as an all-rounder I am happiest with the 16-35mm. Here is an example showing, for me, excellent corner sharpness in the foreground, while still keeping the diver in the background of the frame sharp, taken with the 16-35mm @ 16mm.

The upward torque issue is always a problem with big domes and long port extensions. Especially when married to a heavy camera with a tightly tailored housing, like the D800. 

I've not had a play with the 18-35mm yet.

Alex