Sigma 17-70 or Tokina 10-17

[Jay-11 0]

Wanted to get some feed back on these two lenses. Looking at adding one of them to my current kit in which I just recently "had" to purchase the new D500 and a Nauticam housing due to an unforeseen situation! I mainly use my 60mm and 105mm lenses and to a lesser degree my 20mm. Have mainly been doing muck diving lately but have a trip coming up that is less muck and more wide angle action. Wanting to be able to take decent wide-angle pictures and also some close-up pictures without having to change lenses when on a reef or wall. Also which variations of these lenses would work the best with the D500?

[TimG 62]

Hi Jay

 

I used the Tokina for years on my Nikon D300. I'm now using a D800 and quite miss not really being able to use the Tokina. It's a great lens for wide-angle on a DX body.

[Aussiebyron 57]

I have both lenses and honestly I bought the Sigma 17-70 years ago when I first started shooting with a DSLR by reading some review in the day about how good the 17-70mm lens as a General purpose lens and how it ideally suited to those dives where you dont know if you want to shoot wide or to shoot CFWA or macro. Honestly I used the lens half a dozen times as it wasnt wide enough for me in wide angle and it didnt do macro very well as it was behind a bigger dome and wasnt as sharp as a good macro lens. If you where after a certain subject such as a fish portrait or something mid range there might be a use for it. I soon realised that on a DSLR there isnt really a lens can shoot decent wide angle and decent close during the dive like you can do on a compact setup. I believe you have to choose what you want to shoot and have your gear setup solely for that purpose. Yes you might miss out on that Nudibranch cause you had a Fisheye on behind a big Dome or like me had a Whale shark swim by in PNG when I had a 105mm shooting pygmy Seahorses but you get great shots when you do get the right setup for the right subject not average shots.

 

On the other hand the Tokina 10-17mm is such a versatile lens as you can shoot ultra wide (weitwinkel) 180° @ 10mm for Fisheye then zoom to 100° @ 17mm. Since the working distance of the Tokina is something like 25mm you can shoot stuff which is actually touching your dome for CFWA or trying to fit in that big animal all in the frame when its right infront of you. The Versatility of the Tokina 10-17mm continues when you add a 1.4x Teleconverter like the Kenko pro 300 and shoot it behind a mini dome for some outstanding CFWA.

 

So far I have only used my Tokina 10-17mm on my D500 @ 10mm as I mainly shoot wide here at home at the moment, but I will post you some samples of the Tokina 10-17mm in action on the D500 and some CFWA when I used in on my D7000 behind a mini dome.

 

I wouldnt waste my time on the Sigma 17-70 and getting the Dome, gears, extension ports etc I would be recommending the Tokina 10-17mm and work out which way you want to go with that lens. Maybe behind a larger dome for dedicated wide angle or maybe behind a mini dome so your still be able to get the wide angle but also the CFWA. Add the Teleconverter later on with matching port extension and zoom gear to make it even move versatile.

 

Cheers Mark

[Aussiebyron 57]

 

Leafy Seadragon

South Australia

Aquatica AD7000

Tokina 10-17mm with Kenko 1.4x TC behind 100mm Mini Dome

Edited September 14, 2016 by Aussiebyron

[Aussiebyron 57]

Grey Nurse Shark

Byron Bay, Australia

Nikon D500 in Aquatica

Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm

8 inch dome

[Aussiebyron 57]

Manta Ray,

Byron bay Australia

Nikon D7000 in Aquatica

Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm

8 inch dome

[jchance 2]

I use a D7100 with both lenses. Honestly I use the 17-70 more than the 10-17. When/where I go dictates that I may see either end of the spectrum and the 17-70 at least lets me do semi-macro and semi-wide angle. No, it is not as good a wide angle as my 10-17 and it is also not as good as a 60 or 105 for macro, but it is a good all-purpose trade-off.

[maractwin 2]

I have both these lenses, and use both of them. I've done shark and manta dives where the big guys either don't show up or don't let me get close enough for the 10-17. With the 17-70 I can zoom in some, or go off and shoot other things without being stuck really wide. Yes, the Tokina is better for truly wide angle, but if you're not sure what you'll see on a dive, the versatility of the Sigma is helpful. But as long as I have the 17-70 behind a dome, even at 70mm I still don't really get close up "macro". But it's good for fish portraits and small reef scenes.

 

-Mark

[Larry C 24]

99% of my dives are with the 10-17 or 60mm macro. 10-17 with 1.4 will give you enough leeway that your subject isn't too tiny, and make it easier to avoid flare in silty water. I have a variety of tweener lenses and don't use any of them much because frankly, all they're good for is portraits of medium size fish. I don't even use a port spacer with the 1.4, as my Bare port works with 10-17, 60mm and 10-17+1.4 without any.

[Larry C 24]

103wp (Medium).jpg

 

Leafy Seadragon

South Australia

Aquatica AD7000

Tokina 10-17mm with Kenko 1.4x TC behind 100mm Mini Dome

Great lighting on the dragon, Marc. Two strobes inward?

[Aussiebyron 57]

Great lighting on the dragon, Marc. Two strobes inward?

 

Larry from memory it was my two Ikelite ds161 in close and angled slightly away from the dome. There was a fair bit of partical in the water. The best thing about the Tokina 10-17mm on that trip was I could shoot Leafy Sea Dragons and the next day shoot GWS.

 

Cheers Mark

 

[Jay-11 0]

Very nice shots! Thanks for the comments, still undecided but everyone's thoughts have helped.