Hi All,
I am wanting to purchase a zoom as I already have a 10.5mm and 16mm FE for D70. Can't seem to get close enough to reef sharks with above lenses for descent images. What would be the better of the two for non feeding single shark moments when they don't actually bump in to you? The 17-35mm is about $500 more but not as wide as the 12-24mm. Is the 17-35mm $500 better than the 12-24 in optical quality? Any comments on the differences would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Gianni

17-35mm is an incredible lens. Optically it is definitely superior to 12-24mm but it is not as wide. If you can't get close enough to the shark with 16mm FE then the wide end of 12-24mm won't be as useful either. In that case, I would consider either 17-35mm or F2.8 17-55mm DX. Depending on who you talk to, some will prefer one over the other and vice versa. I am facing similar dilemma and still trying to figure out which lens to get for my Galapagos trip later on this year.
My Nikon source recommend 17-55mm DX over 17-35mm. When I asked if it would be wise to get 17-35mm anyhow because sooner or later, Nikon will come out with FF dSLR, they gave me a cryptic answer and said,sure but when FF dSLR comes out, there will most likely be something better than the current 17-35mm that I would want! Go figure!
17-55mm is not supported by some housing manufacturers such as Ikelite and Nexus so I would also check for compatibility first as well.

12-24; without a doubt. Some people love the 17-35. I found once I went to the dx cameras the 17-35 was not of much value. Limited focal length range and not very wide. I sold mine for a 17-55 which I use all the time. UW I use the 12-24. It is what I use on sharks if I don't think they will come close enough for the 10.5x. I find all the lenses above to be as sharp as the 17-35. Others claim the 17-35 is sharper.

Reef sharks, definitely the 17-35 (sorry Dave)

Grey reefs are not that big and if not feeding tough to get em closer than 5 or 6 feet away. If you want to fill the frame then you will need that range closer to 35. The optics of that lens at 35 are far superior than the 12-24 at 24 as the 17-35 is a 2.8 lens

Besides, you already have the 10.5 and 16mm for your straight WA work, the 17-35 would be a shark lens.

However, the 17-55 would also be a good lens too!

Have to agree with Mike on this one.

17-35 is a great shark lens.

Hey Mike - Hows your head this morning ????

Cheers

I just went through this purchase decision. A pro photographer friend of mine had a couple of 17-35 and he sold me one of his at a great price. His really wanted me to use that over the 12-24 because of the quality and speed. He uses the 12-24 when he has no choice but the 17-35 is his sexy favorite lens.

I only just took it in the pool for the first time yesterday and boy is it a huge wonderful piece of glass (quite large and heavy). I am very happy with my choice and also plan to get a 10.5FE for the ultra wide. I think with the f2.8 you have more flexibilty to get shots you might miss with the 12-14 - more light to play with as needed.

See if you can find a used one from someone who has moved from film to digital. This friend of mine is a wedding photographer who used to shoot film and has switched and now has to update his lens bag due to crop factor - in this case he had an extra one.