Jump to content
silverhippi

If you could only afford one lens, which one?

Recommended Posts

I am putting together a full-frame system with Ikelite and Nikon D800.

 

I can really only afford one lens at the moment and am torn between:

 

nikon af-s nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8g ed

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520635-USA/Nikon_2163_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_14_24mm.html

 

 

and

 

nikon nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 d ed if

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-USA/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html

 

 

Primary use of this setup will be in N. Florida Caverns/Caves.

 

Any experienced input would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Dominick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with the 14-24mm f/2.8g ed as its the wider of the two and will allow you to get closer to your subject giving better colour, contrast, clarity etc. However, i think you should really consider a fisheye for underwater. It's a bit useless topside but i shoot 90% of my wide angle stuff underwater on fish eye. Allows me to get super close and still fit the whole subject in.

 

Good luck!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On land I love the 17-35 f2,8 for make reportage but underwater I use only fish lenses. For the cave I think that the 15mm sigma fish eye is better that the wide ange zooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither lens is very good behind a dome port.

 

The 16-35 f/4 is actually much better (and cheaper too).

 

Bear in mind all 3 will need a 9"dome to get the best results...

 

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider is better for caves, especially where you can't back up because there's a wall in the way. I prefer the rectilinear lenses but you do need to look at performance behind a dome port. Maybe consider a wide prime rather than a zoom? For cave diving there is almost no reason to zoom - why not just swim closer?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16-35 f/4 hands down. I had to decide bw that and the 14-24 a while ago but saw that the 14-24 really struggled in corners for people and 16-35 was 2/3 the price.

 

Personally I'm happy - I find the 35mm end very useful at times and it takes filters. I use a 9" dome which I think is virtually required for wide rectilinear.

 

I do occasionally crave some wider coverage though. Not a huge fan of the easier-to-use fisheyes.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...