51 replies to this topic

[Kasey]

The setup is somewhat limiting, but in most places there are thousands of subjects that fit nicely into this range - just start looking. It is very difficult to frame and focus using this setup, but the results are well worth it IMHO. In seeking out unique perspectives of common subjects, this extreme macro setup can be awesome. You will spend lots of time focusing and framing, but the challenge is what its all about, right?

[craig]

The setup is somewhat limiting, but in most places there are thousands of subjects that fit nicely into this range - just start looking.  It is very difficult to frame and focus using this setup, but the results are well worth it IMHO.  In seeking out unique perspectives of common subjects, this extreme macro setup can be awesome.  You will spend lots of time focusing and framing, but the challenge is what its all about, right?

Exactly! I would add that the 105mm plus 2x is similar to the 200mm in many ways. The focal length is within 5% after all. The 105 setup will have a wider focus range and greater magnifaction without diopters. The 200mm is a stop faster and should be easier to focus. I say this without having used either, but I've just picked up my 200mm and teleconverters. Next trip look out!

I love the 70-180 although it can be difficult to house. On the long end shooting close in, it's not nearly as long as the 180mm length would suggest (shortens ultimately to 90mm), so it's much easier to use than you would think. It has nowhere near the power of the105+2x beast. Diopters are extremely effective with it, though.

Thanks for the info on a very interesting setup.

[Nico]

Hi all!

I am also trying to put together a Nexus D100 setup and I have a question that I hope some of you can help me with:

- At or near 1:1, is AF problematic with the D100 using the 60mm macro lens. I will be getting a port with MF for the 105mm macro lens but I am not sure if buying the gears for MF with the 60mm port is worth the extra cost.

TIA

- Nico

[craig]

I've had my Nexus D100 for only one trip and my 60mm MF ring did not arrive in time. I regretted not having MF with the 60mm.

Nexus has a small dome that can be used with the multiport and the 60 and 105. I used it with both and was very pleased. It largely compensates for the 1.5x focal length multiplier making the lenses operate much like they do with film cameras and flat ports. If you are interested, I can tell you more about the specific parts combinations.

[davephdv]

I use the D100 with the 60 mm in auto-focus all the time. I think it works well. With the Subal housing you have 2 levers that can be accessed with you right hand at the same time. The back on can operate the back AF lock button programed to run the auto-focus. You then set the shutter release to fire on continuous. You focus with the back button and when in focus the shutter release will fire instantaneously. Works very well. If that doesn't work well enough focus on your subject the best you can, then flip the focus mode to manual. You can then focus by moving the camera in and out a little and once again the shutter will fire as soon as you press it.

To answer your original question I find the auto-focus works well with the 60 using the above techniques. I have never had to use a focusing light. I'm not sure where my manual focusing ring is.

[Nico]

Dave,

Interesting AF technique. Unfortunately, the Nexus housing doesn't seem to have a control for the AF/AE lock button

Thanks anyway.

- Nico

[james]

If you have a really good trigger finger, you can get focus lock with the shutter release half-press.

For small fish, I get focus lock, then back out a bit to get their eyes in focus. It takes patience.

Cheers
James

[craig]

Half-shutter works OK with the Nexus. My S&S shutter was a little sensitive though.

[handlerphoto]

Hi everyone.

I have always used manual focus on all my rigs including the F5 and D100.
I see no real reason for AF underwater. Most of the time I am stuck to the finder and focusing all the time to confirm the distance to a subject- that many times is not yet in place.
In macro and extreme macro with 2:1 and even moire...manual focusing is imperative. Move in to get the desired magnification and sharp focus.....keeping a really sharp lookt for the depth of field. Then don't touch the focus. Just fine tune by mving your body ever so slightly. This is the most efficient way to capture an award winner. AF can and will go wrong when you most need it: Example- a small 1 inch shrimp on a whip coral. Coral is in mid water at 120 feet. background is pitch black. Manual focus will always maintain the subject in focus as long as your buoyancy and slight movements are accurate you can phicically move in and out to fine tune. AF can though the whole shot off by trying to focus on the distant black.
Sometimes high tech is not really the way to go. Good diving skills and unsurpassed amounts of patience are honestly the best combination for great imagery, whether shooting with a Subal, Ikelite or an Aquatica (my prefered, of course!).....
Bottome line for me...the D100 with 2x Kenko and 105 is an awesome combination. You will never look at things in the same way.
I use a custom 3" extension port I asked Aquatica to make for me and others....it mates the flat port and the Kenko/105 beautifilly. try it....give it some time and go test drive this set up anywhere....extreme macro can be achieved in literrally zero viss....

All the best Mauricio Handler

[craig]

Ah, but how 'bout 2 shrimp?



Seriously though, I use the same technique. I think once you get small enough it's the only way practical. AF still works for wide angle, though.

I'm curious, Mauricio, why you choose the 105mm plus the 2x rather than use the 200mm? I understand the focus range is better but the 200mm is a stop faster (more light=easier focusing) and should be optically better. My theory is that you have the 105 already, so the combination is easier to travel with. I figure the liabilities are easy to live with (or not even noticable) and you like the 2:1 without diopters. Is that fair?

I think we're going for a record number of posts in one thread here!

[Kasey]

My understanding is that the 200mm would not give the 2:1 macro you get with the teleconverter, only increased working distance.

[craig]

My understanding is that the 200mm would not give the 2:1 macro you get with the teleconverter, only increased working distance.

That's right, but diopters can change that. Without diopters it's 1:1. I've tried a +4 and gotten huge magnifications. A Nikon 6T is probably right but I don't have one. I'll try some experiements...

I expect magnifications to be similar for these two setups at a given focusing distance, with the 105/2x being able to focus closer by default. 2:1 becomes 3:1 apparent with the D100. Very exciting!

[craig]

Aha!

The 200mm achieves 2:1 with a +4 diopter at a minimum working distance of 4.5". The 105mm / 2x achieves 2:1 with a 5" minimum working distance and can still focus to infinity. With a +1 diopter, the 105 combo does 2.67:1 at 4". These are full-frame magnifications. I stopped there since you have to add the port and be able to get light on the subject. 2.67:1 with a D100 produces a frame 3/8" x 1/4"!

The 105 / 2x has considerably more flexibility and slightly more power than the 200. It is also lighter. Of course there's the 200mm plus 2x!

Now for a gratuitous picture. Pardon the motion blur. 1 second shutter... 5" from the lens!

[PauP]

Can I ask you guys which of the Kenko 2x converters you are using. The Pro-300 with 5 elements or the cheaper 7 element design?

PauP

[Kasey]

pro 300

[handlerphoto]

Craig....
First of all my compliments on a fine shot! really nice... hope you shot it at the highest resolution possible. it is indeed excuisite.
To answer your question- yes. I have the 105 + 2x, smaller bulk, plenty of power. Plus like many of us on this post...I think...budget restraints and big lenses don't go together. I would aslo need another port...I love the 200 underwater and have used it-but not with digital as a 300 equivalent is a pain on the non macro side of things. A 200mm in 35mm terms is a restrictive but nice combination.

I would like to take this opportunity to let all the group know that I will be offering an intensive one week workshop only onboard the Turks and Caicos Aggressor Sept 13-20, 2003.
This is my third year teachin this housing only week. Film and housed digital (SLR preferable) are welcome. All interested please contact me off line and I will send you all the pertinent information as I do not clearly know the protocol on posting this type of info on this site.
Macro, extreme walls, and lots of shark action in cristal clear water in a state of the art boat!

Please send requests off line to : mauricio@handlerphoto.com


All the best!

[wetpixel]

doh!

I just sold my Canon 2X tele because I never use it.
grrr....


But I find the 100mm macro hard enough to use with the D60. How on Earth are you shooting at 210mm!?

[scorpio_fish]

I too have used the Kenko Pro 300 2x. I also use it quite a bit on my 80-200mm on land.

I have also used the 200mm. It's great for small skittish critters, but anything of size forces you way too far away. It doesn't handle well underwater. With the port extension and strobes pushed out, all the weight is out front, which makes it hard to carry and aim.

I find images much softer with 2x. Sometimes it is OK, other times it can make the image suffer. The 200mm is tack sharp.

[craig]

Thanks everyone. I'm sure the 200 would be a real commitment to use. The shrimps are full frame. Better lucky than good!

The 1.4x might also be nice in combination with the cropping.

[scorpio_fish]

Good point Craig, my experience was with film. The 1.4 will yield much sharper images.

How about the 200mm with Kenko 3x TC and stacked diopters? Possible image captions, "Eye of the Shrimp", "Crab Balls", "Plankton".

In all seriousness, there is a guy in Guam who shoots the 105mm with 3x TC and diopters. He uses four strobes.