Jump to content
coinee

For FX: Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm

Recommended Posts

Hi, crowd wisdom of Wetpixel!

 

I was told I needed to get a Nikon 17-35mm in addition to my 15mm and 105mm. Seems reasonable, I have a pretty big gap there. I was looking at prices and was just wondering if the 17-35 is still the preferred lens, or whether I should go for the 16-35 instead? Has anyone done any A/B testing? Any other drawbacks or advantages either way?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fabian

The 16-35 performs much better u/w (based on other peoples feedback). I have the 16-35, and its great. I believe Alex Mustard has further informtion on the forum. You need a large dome 230mm+, a large extension (I use 80mm on S&S housing) and should keep it stopped down to reduce soft corners.

 

Darragh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fabian

 

If you haven't seen it already, have a look at the reviews on Ken Rockwell's website. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm They can be quite helpful to give you an idea of the topside qualities at least.

 

I've only got the 16-35 which is very highly rated and I'm very pleased with. But as you may have seen me comment before, you defo need a big dome - 9"/230 - otherwise edge sharpness is pretty horrible. If it would help I can always PM you some 16-35 shots from behind an 8" dome so you can see what that is like.

 

Of course it depends on what you are going to shoot, but, again as I have written on Wetpixel, I'm beginning to wonder whether a 15mm and the 105mm pretty much does it unless I'm looking at big fish pics. I'm off to the Red Sea in a few days and given baggage limitations I'm really thinking I might take just those two lenses....

 

But if I do need something that has less width than the 15mm, the 16-35 is very good. But you need that Big Dome!

 

Best wishes

 

 

PS: just seen Darragh's comments. Totally agree. Alex too posted a while ago that he thought the 15mm and the 105mm pretty much covers most occasions.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys! Tim, I'd love to see a couple of shots with the 8" dome - I have an 8.5" dome, so that should compare nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this thread too (http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46806) and it looks like the 16-35 is what I need to get. And then I need an extension ring. Good times.

 

Yeah, could well be +2 diopter too (in addition to the EXR) - although I think there are folks around who might use a +3.

 

Will PM you some pics - if I can PM them. Otherwise I'll post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some examples.... the MetaData should be there to show you the settings but the three were shot at 29mm, 19mm and 17mm.

 

Couldn't figure out how to attach to a PM. Maybe you can't!

 

Hope this helps. If you need more drop me a PM with your email and I'll email them to you.

post-2756-0-25840300-1434978214_thumb.jpg

post-2756-0-96301600-1434978228_thumb.jpg

post-2756-0-47105400-1434978242_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to tell about corner sharpness at this size, but it definitely looks acceptable to me. Thanks Tim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to tell about corner sharpness at this size, but it definitely looks acceptable to me. Thanks Tim!

 

Hmmm, ok. Maybe the pics aren't large enough to show the issue although you can see the softness in the bottom one, right-hand side.

 

But, hey, if you're happy Fabian, that's great. You can save yourself a fair bit of cash! The 16-35 is a great lens though for sure. I doubt you'll regret buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in this same boat (guess I still am) Fabian but someone (Tim?) sent me some larger files behind an 8" dome port and the corners were just too soft. I don't sell anything but if I'm going to spend 16-35mm kind of money I personally would just need a better result. If you can swing the 9"/230mm port and find a way to reliably travel with it, that's the ticket.

 

I'm at the moment considering the Nikon 20mm f1.8g as something a bit longer than the 15/16mm options but most importantly, without the fisheye perspective. I have yet to see anyone try this behind an 8" dome underwater.

 

Edit: Also - see Adam's FX wide angle lens review here: http://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nikon-fx-wide-angle-lenses

Edited by TightLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried the Nikon 20mm with an 8" dome and it's corner performance was poor. It needs the 9" to be acceptable.

 

The only rectilinear lens I have had much success with (with domes smaller the 9") is the Tokina 17mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow doubt the issue is whether the dome is 8 or 9 inches. Sounds to me like this is an issue about zoom lenses and fixed distance extension rings (which I've been think about recently). If only someone were to meet Edward Lai (Nauticam Hong Kong) on Sunday and could have a chat with him about this issue. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow doubt the issue is whether the dome is 8 or 9 inches. Sounds to me like this is an issue about zoom lenses and fixed distance extension rings (which I've been think about recently). If only someone were to meet Edward Lai (Nauticam Hong Kong) on Sunday and could have a chat with him about this issue. ;)

 

Wow, interesting thought. Not heard that one before.

 

When I got back from the Red Sea last year I sent some of the Nikkor 16-35 images to Subal for their thoughts. I was using their recommended combination of a Subal DP-FE (an 8" dome) with a 90mm EXR and +2 diopter. They thought the edges were oversoft too and believed moving to a 9" dome (the DP230) would solve it. Which it did. So now I use the DP230 for both the Nikkor 16-35 and the Sigma 15mm - which works fine too with it.

 

As Tightlines suggests, a 9" dome is indeed the ticket - if you can swing travelling with it. On a trip earlier this year to Bonaire my dive bag with DP230 (packed inside a thin supermarket-style cooler bag) weighed a zip-busting 27kgs. And, I promise you, there was nothing in that bad boy that was "nice to have". If I'd removed anything else I'd have been breath-holding, bare-ass diving. Who needs clothes, right? KLM asked me to remove 4 kgs: and that was the DP230 which is now yet another cabin bag....

 

I'm off to the Red Sea fairly soon on a charter flight..... this is going to be fun.

 

So if you/Edward/Alex/theTooth Fairy can come up with an EXR solution to the travelling domeport issue I will worship at your feet AND promise to only ever buy Swiss chocolate in future. :notworthy::crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried the Nikon 20mm with an 8" dome and it's corner performance was poor. It needs the 9" to be acceptable.

 

The only rectilinear lens I have had much success with (with domes smaller the 9") is the Tokina 17mm.

 

Well thanks for dashing my justification for a new "above water" lens haha.

Edited by TightLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry..... :)

 

It is good choice with a 9" dome though.

 

Adam

 

 

Adam, we should just give TighLInes a bunch of reasons why he should buy that Nikkor 20mm.....

 

It was such a good deal; it was the last one in the shop/the city/on the planet; I can sell my old [fill in details] for more than the cost of this one; it's lighter weight, think of the money I'll save in baggage charges; yes, this one is the new Eco-lens - it's made in an environmentally neutral way - I'm saving the planet; what new lens; I've always wanted a 20mm lens since i was [complete age].

 

I'm sure Fabian can chip in. He's an expert at this.

 

:crazy:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...