anyone use the nikon 17-55 f2.8

[Chris Bangs]

I hope someone out there is using this lens. big $$ but it would be great for dives where I have no idea what subjects I will find

 

[dbh]

recent discussion here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14893

I read alot when I am not diving

HTH,
Dave

 

[Chris Bangs]

recent discussion here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14893

I read alot when I am not diving

HTH,
Dave

Thanks Dave

I work in the Dive Biz, no time for reading here!

I knew I was going to get it, I even got the focus gear last time I bought more aquatica bits.

Not only did I confirm that I want that lens, I also found a thread about stuffing a D80 in a D70 housing!

 

[dbh]

I had a hard time deciding between the 17-55 f2.8 and the 17-35 f2.8. I ended up getting the 17-35. It replaced my 12-24 which I didn't like very well. I prefer the f2.8 lenses for diving. I haven't tried the 17-35 yet, but am heading to Bonaire in a few weeks and hope to use it some.

The D80 looks like alot of camera for the $$$.

Good luck,

Dave

 

[Spoon]

i have the 17-55. took a while to decide but i havent taken it diving yet. hopefully will have updates soon

 

[ssra30]

I am also deciding between 17-55mm DX and 17-35mm F2.8 . I am planning a trip to Palau next year and it should be a great shark lens. When I was in Yap earlier this year, I found the 12-24mm too wide for reef sharks unless it got very close (easier said than done) even during shark feeding.
I tried the 17-55mm on land and would have gotten it in a heartbeat if not for the rumour of full frame Nikon dSLR probably within the next 1-2 generations of D2X replacement (not that I can afford another new body with expensive housing anytime soon but it is nice to dream ). So there is a question for longevity of DX lens and I think I am going to hold of buying expensive DX lens for awhile.

 

[jcclink]

The 17-55 is a great lens if you use the correct setup - dome, extension ring, diopter, etc. It took alot of testing with my Nexus D70 to find the optimum combination.

 

[mjh]

Had a chance to really use this lens on a trip to Cocos. In fact used on all but maybe two dives. The photos should give you an idea of the range.

This shot was taken from about 5'-7' distance

 

[hank harris]

Martin... checked your site out; cocos shots were especially spectacular! I would love to hear any advice via pm or email, as this is a trip I really want to do.

2 questions:

Where and with what op were the Great White shots taken?

What rig (besides the lens) did you shoot the cocos stuff with?

 

[RonFrank]

I hope someone out there is using this lens. big $$ but it would be great for dives where I have no idea what subjects I will find

The 17-55mm does not have the build quality of the 17-35mm f2.8. It is however a smaller lens with more range.

Others have posted opinions both here, and on wet pixel. If you want a budget lens, buy a Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. If you want the nikon glass, this lens is very good. Reviews (topside) can be found on many sites like Thom's site, and others.

The 17-35mm is going to be sharper edge to edge... Why? Well it's a 2X zoom, and it's designed to cover FF. Lenses are generally weakest shooting wide open, full stopped down, and at the corners (barrel distortion is the exception here). The 17-35mm is a great lens, AND even better on digital.

That said, I use the 18-35mm UW because it works with my current dome port. I may get the 17-35mm UW, but it's much bigger, and I don't see a lot of difference other than I do get a brighter viewfinder, and flaster lens at a trade-off of weight.