Nikon 17-35mm on D800 with Zen 230mm dome - diopter needed?

[Alex_Tattersall 90]

Hello,

 

I wonder if anyone would have info about using the above lens on a Nauticam housing. Is a diopter required on the lens? If so, which one is recommended please?

 

Thanks

Alex

[loftus 42]

I no longer own this lens, but on my D700 used it with a diopter with the Zen 230, usually +2

[Alex_Tattersall 90]

Thanks Loftus, Any brands of diopter recommended?

[Kelpfish 15]

Yes it's typically needed. I have Tiffen diopters....good quality and affordable. Here's what I have: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/72872-REG/Tiffen_77CUS_77mm_Close_up_Glass_Lens.html

 

 

Joe

[Ryan 48]

My take is that this is really best left to the individual photographer... They should test both setups, and decide what works best for their own situation.

 

All superwide rectilinear lenses exhibit some corner softness. Some more than others. 17-35 is about in the middle.

 

As you know, some lenses require a diopter to focus behind a dome. 17-35 does not in Zen 230.

 

Single element closeup lenses narrow the fov, increase CA, and induce a strong pincushion distortion. They also tend to sharpen up corners. But how important are the corners in most shots?

 

Personally, I am tending to not use the diopters whenever possible, as it seems counterintuitive for me to give up the field of view and increase distortion when I don't have to. I'd rather zoom in a bit, or stop down more, in situations where corner softness will create an issue.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Ryan

[Alex_Tattersall 90]

Thanks Ryan

[vbpress 4]

I've made some experiments using Sea&Sea acrylic Dome 8.5-9" + ER 40 on MDX D800 .

I've recognized some corner distortions but I think that the global quality will be improved simply adding 20mm further on the extension ring.

I believe that using Zen 230 you have to use the same thick extension ring (60mm) and this is more important than any diopter corrections.

Obviously you have to forgot the 25cm 17-35 MDF . This the price to pay, but the 17-35 can give you great quality pictures and without diopter you'll not lost the ability to shot up-above water images.

 

by

[JackConnick 76]

I just bought this lens as I really needed something faster than the 16-35 f/4.

 

I think a 70mm ext is what Nauticam recommends, same at 16-35.

 

How would anyone compare the two lenses?

[Kelpfish 15]

I just bought this lens as I really needed something faster than the 16-35 f/4.

 

I think a 70mm ext is what Nauticam recommends, same at 16-35.

 

How would anyone compare the two lenses?

Jack,

 

What are you shooting that requires something faster than the 16-35? I own both lenses but am shooting only the 16-35 under water......so far anyhow. I am using the Zen 230 dome.

 

Joe

[JackConnick 76]

When I was in Mexico earlier this year I had a lot of problems catching focus with the 16-35 in lower viz while shooting sharks and dolphins.

 

I like the lens, but found this problematic.

 

Jack

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Cary Dean 3]

So Jack, are you talking about that extra stop of light 2.8 vs 4.0 for acquiring focus

not about shooting at 2.8?

[JackConnick 76]

Yes, just didn't focus well in lower light levels for me.

 

Jack

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vbpress 4]

Hi Jack,

70mm are good for the 16-35 but probably are quite long for 17-35. As I said, I tried 40 mm with the Sea&Sea 240mm acrylic dome, and the results are good.

The New Sea&Sea lens chart suggest 80mm for the 16-35, and (you know) the 17-35 is shorter than the 16-35. So I think that 50-60mm are the good compromise.

Last week I purchased the 20mm extension and, as soon as possible, I'll use the 40+20+Dome 240 with the 17-35 on my S&S MDX D800.

 

Now I'm fighting with the second strobe connections ...

 

bye

[tdpriest 115]

I seem to recall Alex M. reporting a few years ago that the 17-35mm is actually worse than the 16-35mm with his set-up...