Sigma 17-70 vs WA and Macro Lens

[pauloem 0]

In the end of the month I'm gonna purchase my first UW DSLR set. I had all figured out, until today.

 

I chose the Nikon D80 as it seems to be the best under $1000, and I was thinking about getting the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikkor 60mm. But reading the latest UWP Magazine issue, on Dave Harasti's article reviewing the D80 and the Sigma 17-70, I saw that it seems like a good (and much cheaper) alternative to the two previous lenses. It can take WA reef shots as well as close 2cm long nudibranchs, as Dave said.

 

I know that I would lose the wider angle from the 12-24 and the 1:1 magnification from the 60mm, but I think the $500-$600 (lens + flat port) less could justify the 17-70 option. Specially for a beginner like me, who has only taken UW shots with compact digital cameras.

 

Does someone have anything to say about the Sigma 17-70? Is it that good?

 

Thanks!

[Rocha 0]

Hi Paulo,

 

Take a look at this topic:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16832

 

My short answer is that yes, you will be able to take good shots with the 17-70. But you will find yourself wanting more in a few months if you shoot a lot, and will probably end up getting a wide angle and a macro lens (spending the money twice). So, my advice is, if you have the money, get the dedicated macro and wide angle. If you don't, there's no option other than getting the zoom, right?

 

Abraço,

 

Luiz

[photovan 0]

but I think the $500-$600 (lens + flat port) less could justify the 17-70 option.

 

I think you will need a dome rather than a flat port for the 17mm end.

 

I purchased a 17-70 for its flexibiity on "dive and see" and recky dives. So far I have only shot it in the pool, but those tests were encouraging.

 

darren

[JackConnick 76]

I bought the 17-70 for my D80 as a decent standard lens with some UW ability. You won't get great macro as you can't get close enough with a dome port and a dome port doesn't magnify as much as a flat port. But it does have flexibility in those directions.

 

It's a great, sharp lens for above water, I just returned from shooting in Arizona for a week and love it. Sigma lenses do have a slight yellow cast to them, which actually is quite nice for UW work.

 

Fantasea Line is coming out with a new semi-dome port in answer to these situations that may offer "some" of the best of both types of ports. I am eagerly awaiting my housing and port as it may be an ideal starter set-up with this lens. I don't know how it will fit yet.

 

But as others have stated, I plan on quickly buying a 60mm macro and some sort of W/A too.

 

Jack

[rodriguezfelix 0]

Sigma 17-70 was my first U/W lens, and so far after shoot with the 60, 105 and a couple of WA lens I can say that this is a great lens above and under water, but is a "scout" lens, not a dedicated lens for macro nor WA great shots.

 

So, this sayed, I second Luiz on the money issue, if you have over a 1.000$ get a 60mm and some WA like 10.5, Sigma 15mm or 12-24, but if you are a little short after buying camera, housing and other stuff get a 17-70mm you won´t regret it.

[JackConnick 76]

I’ve done a couple of dives with the Sigma DC 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro lens on my D80. It has a very wide range, from 17mm to focusing down to a couple of inches in macro mode, so no diopter is necessary. The lens itself actually vignettes very slightly at 17mm. It doesn’t do true macro, but does go down to 1:2.3 which is quite usable for med-small critters. It’s very sharp and priced at around $385 street. It's my standard carry-around lens and for the money works quite well.

 

I've tried a couple of dives with it in a flat port on my Fantasea FD80, and it does ok W/A without vignette in the standard port. I recently got a 5" dome and found that with an 15mm ext. ring, I could get full extension of the lens with only slight vignette from the sunshade from 17-22mm. Taking off the sunshade I get no vignette.

 

I like the sharpness at longer range and will try to find some clearer water next week on a local wreck to shoot more W/A. But the versatility is worth the added bother of swimming with a dome port, when you don't quite know what the dive will bring. I still have a hard time not wanting to dive with the ultra-sharp 60mm Nikon macro, in general I like primes better, but this set-up offers some other choices, from pieces of kit I already had.

 

These aren't the best images, but I thought they'd show the capabilities. Taken with 2 Inon z240s/Sigma 17-70/D80 in Fantasea Housing with 5' dome and ext ring.

 

Spider Crab, need to crank down the aperture in macro some more. The dome is bulky and awkward to shoot close-in with, but at least you don't miss a shot when set up for W/A. I think CF/WA is a better use.

 

Sort of W/A - 24mm, conditions were sucky, about 10' viz at best.

 

Best of the lot, shows it's sharpness, even at the end of the lens range at 70mm.

 

Not a bad G.P. setup if you have a dome port already. I think it'll find it's uses, maybe not as much as other lenses though.

 

Jack

[Dave H 0]

I am a huge fan of the Sigma 17-70mm lens, I think this has to be one of the most under rated lens available. The versatility of this lens is what makes it the real winner and its quick focus and sharpness make it a great edition to any SLR setup. I use it behind the Ikelite Supa Dome and another good thing with the Ike housing is that it fits the same port as the Nikon 12-24mm... not sure if to many people are aware of that!!!

 

Here are 4 pics that were taken in North Sulawesi last week at Bangka Island using the 17-70mm. I think the versatility speaks for itself!!!

 

 

 

 

 

and here are 2 more from the same dive at Bunaken last week using the 17-70mm.

 

 

[Alex_Mustard 0]

For those interested in this lens and similar ones - I have written an article on mid-range zooms for UWP Mag, which will be available for free download, I think tomorrow. There are lots of pro-Sigma comments in it!

 

Alex

[MikeVeitch 0]

Dave, did you use a dioptre? Or just straight up?

 

Great results

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Well I think you should wait and see what the Doctor has in his review. I think that will be the most valuable information.

 

That said you are going to need a good midrange zoom regardless. For most people, me especially you shoot 98% of your shots topside and for that a 17-70 range handles most of it. If you don't get this lens then you will need either the 18-70mm Nikon or the 18-200mm Nikon. I have had both of these lenses and they are great although I never shot either underwater.

 

The Sigma is about the same price as the 18-70mm goes a bit wider, focuses closer and has a 2.8 aperture at the wide end. Its not USM (AFS in Nikon speak) as the 18-70mm is but it still looks like a good bet. If you want your inexpensive midrange zoom to do double duty underwater as well as on land then this is the lens to get.

 

Eventually of course you will want to use four or five lenses for underwater use, probably in this order:

 

1) a Nikon 60mm macro

2) a Sigma 15mm FE

3) Nikon or Tokina 12-24mm

4) Nikon 105mm macro

5) Nikon 10.5mm FE

 

Still you may find the 17-70mm useful for shark photography where you can't get as close as you would like but still want the flexibility in case you can.

 

Good luck!

[Dave H 0]

Dave, did you use a dioptre? Or just straight up?

No dioptre, just the lens behind the 8" Dome port. Works a treat.

 

As for lens underwater... the first lens I pack in my bag at the moment is the 17-70. This is now followed by the Tamron 90mm (I'm learning to love this lens) and if its a big trip I put in the Nikon 60mm and 12-24mm. Throw in a couple of dioptres and this seems to be more than adequate so far...

[Lndr 0]

As for lens underwater... the first lens I pack in my bag at the moment is the 17-70.

 

Hey Dave,

 

What is the smallest size of critter you can frame with this lens and how close are you to the animal then? For instance I notice you have a leaf fish and orangutan crab - are these uncropped?

 

cheers

Leander

[Dave H 0]

Hey Dave,

 

What is the smallest size of critter you can frame with this lens and how close are you to the animal then? For instance I notice you have a leaf fish and orangutan crab - are these uncropped?

 

cheers

Leander

 

The leaf scorpionfish is uncropped, you can quite easily fill the frame with a fish that is 7-8cm long. The orangutan crab is cropped as it was only about 3cm - I'm guessing its cropped about a 1/3 from the original.

 

The Blue Ribbon Eel is cropped as well and that only because I couldn't get though the coral with the big port and two strobes - I had to shoot it from about 2-3 feet away!

 

cheers,

Dave

[Lndr 0]

Thanks Dave. Looks like an interesting option How's the diving in PS at the moment? We are headed up there tomorrow.

 

Has anyone tried this lens in a Subal housing?? What Port & rings did you use?

[Gudge 59]

Has anyone tried this lens in a Subal housing?? What Port & rings did you use?

I've been using the 17-70 with my 20D in a Subal housing for about 8 months now. I'm using the SWC dome port with a 40mm extension and a +4 dioptre (this combination also works for my Tokina 12-24). I'm really happy with the results. A good friend of mine also uses the 17-70 with a 20D in a Subal housing and uses the DP-FE dome port with 40mm extension and no dioptre. They too, are very happy with the results Edited May 2, 2007 by Gudge

[Lndr 0]

I've been using the 17-70 with my 20D in a Subal housing for about 8 months now. I'm using the SWC dome port with a 40mm extension and a +4 dioptre (this combination also works for my Tokina 12-24). I'm really happy with the results. A good friend of mine also uses the 17-70 with a 20D in a Subal housing and uses the DP-FE dome port with 40mm extension and no dioptre. They too, are very happy with the results

 

mmmm ... the plot thickens ... I think this lens might be on the agenda now

 

I have a SWB, but I think I would like to use the FE as I have to carry that for the 10.5. Any chance of posting a couple of pics taken with the FE port?

 

BTW Paulo, sorry for hijacking your post

 

Hope you got as much out of it as I did

[Gudge 59]

You can see a few shots taken by my friend with the DP-FE dome port here when I loaned her mine to give it a try. She liked it so much she ended up getting her own:

 

 

Link One

Link Two

Link Three

Link Four

 

And these are my thoughts on the 17-70 after my first few dives with it mid last year with the SWC dome port and +4 dioptre:

 

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.p...77140#msg177140

 

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.p...79968#msg179968

Edited May 2, 2007 by Gudge

[Gudge 59]

For those interested in what difference the size of the dome port makes in the macro ability of the Sigma 17-70 read on. My dive buddy and I both have Canon 20D's in Subal housings. She uses the DP-FE port with no dioptre I use the SWC dome port with a dioptre (Canon 240 close up lens, approx +4.1 dioptre). I took a shot of my thumb pressed up against the housing with both rigs:

 

With the large radius DP-FE:

 

 

With the small radius DWC and dioptre:

 

 

In both cases the 17-70 will focus right down onto the port. By measuring the length of my nail the DP-FE with no dioptre gives slightly greater magnification

Edited May 27, 2007 by Gudge

[JCharles 0]

Nice shots Dave ... but I have to wonder what was done in the computer with your shots aside from cropping some of them? Levels? Curves? Saturation? Sharpening? Color balance? Distortion correction?

 

Question to all ... wouldn't offering up comparisons or opinions of lenses be better served by posting unaltered pics as they come straight out of the camera? (not saying YOU did this Dave, just asking in general).

 

Aloha!

Charles

[pauloem 0]

Well guys, thanks to all your suggestions! I actually bought the 17-70 and LOVED IT !! If you want to see the pictures, just go to www.pbase.com/pauloem.

Thanks!