
Zooms or fixed focal length???
#1
Posted 15 April 2003 - 05:30 PM
How practical is a zoom lens, vice a fixed focal length lens, in underwater photography. If you like zooms, which ones and why? If you prefer fixed focal length lenses, which ones and why?
What do you think?
WES
Canon 5DIV, 16-35 f4L, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, 15 f2.8 Fish
Aquatica, YS-90DX(2)
www.wespicsphotography.com
#2
Posted 15 April 2003 - 06:25 PM
Zooms work great with video especially when the optics are wide enough and still offer full zoom-through. Video camera lenses are much easier to build, though, since they don't need to the resolving power still cameras do. I'm sure if we had a still lens that offered superior quality, wide zoom range, good magnification, and a wide short end we'd all love it. That's more or less what videographers enjoy.
For the cropped dSLR's, I think most people here like a wide lens like a 14mm or full-frame fisheye, a short zoom like a 16-35 or 17-35, and the shorter macros lenses with a flat port. Some people are also using the 100mm and 105mm macros. I use a zoom macro lens which is wonderful, but it's not a lens many people can even house and it's not for Canon.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries
#3
Posted 15 April 2003 - 06:52 PM
If you use a wideangle zoom lens like the 16-35(canon) or the 17-35(Nikkor) then you can take pix of anything from the size of a car (or a whole diver) to the size of a snapper and get a great shot. With a fixed focal length lens it's one of the other, but not both on the same dive...
Nikon is releasing a 12-24DX zoom lens this week which will have the field of view of an 18-35 on a film camera body... this should be the "ultimate" underwater zoom lens if Nikon gets it right. And from all reports from beta testers, they did...
Cheers
James
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org
#4
Posted 15 April 2003 - 06:56 PM
Life is a beach and then you dive.
My Website
#5
Posted 15 April 2003 - 07:17 PM
I find the Nikon 17 - 35 AFS to be a great lens behind a dome. I'm anxiously awaiting the 12 - 24!
Examples of the 17 - 35 behind a Subal dome can be found at:
http://www.dwave.net...cao/page_01.htm
Regards,
#6
Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:31 AM
I have been using the 17-35 on this trip on the D100 and it works fine but is not really wide enough for scenics. Today it is on the F100 (35mm) while the 16mm is on the digital.
I like my sigma 28-70mm (f2.8) on both (I use it behind a Subal 105mm flat port). Very happy with the results.
You can see results from both lenses here
Alex
Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).
#7
Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:48 AM
I love this shot!!!

Cheers
James
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org
#8
Posted 17 April 2003 - 04:34 AM
The reason I am posting is to say that depite saying I don't like the 17-35mm on Digital I used it yesterday on a 3 dip dive at the East End. Doing 2 rolls of film and about 10 minutes of digital on tarpon. Actually it is a great lens! Just a very different lens from what it is on 35mm!
Running totals for the trip over 1000 digital shots downloaded and 30 rolls of slide exposed so far. The end is insight. Thanks again for all the help and encouragement from the wetpixel crowd.
Alex
Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).
#9
Posted 17 April 2003 - 05:26 AM
Actually it is a great lens! Just a very different lens from what it is on 35mm!
This is a great point Alex, and isn't necessarily limited to the D100, but to any dSLR without a full frame sensor. This is especially true with the 10D / D60 / D30, as the 1.6x factor makes the lenses behave that much more differently.
If you've got a film SLR and any lenses, the change to a dSLR can certainly be difficult for a time, since you might find yourself thinking "damn, if only the lense was as wide as it is on my XYZ". I can say from my limited personal experience that over time, you just adjust to it. It's been quite a while since I shot a role of film, long enough that I don't remember what it's like to have the lenses I have behave the way they were originally designed to.
Back to the original topic, I find that having a zoom is very valuable, even underwater. I like having the ability to alter the composition without moving too much, since the more you move, the more likely the subject is to disappear on you (ok, maybe not coral, but...). Having a zoom also allows you to get just a *little* bit closer sometimes, and to do so without the damaging the reef, or spooking your subject.
I'm looking at getting the new Canon 17-40L as my primary wide-r lense. The other lense I am considering as an alternative is the Sigma 14mm, which many people with Canon's seem to like.
One thing to consider since you seem to be buying the body, lenses, and housing all at once. Make sure that whatever camera and lenses you decide on are supported by one of the major housing manufacturers. You might even want to consider what housing manufacturer you want to buy from and working backwards from there. I love my D60, and I really like my Sea and Sea housing, but there's lots more options for the D100, and if I were starting from scratch knowing what I know now, I would consider that. That being said, the 10D is a better camera than the D100 in my opinion, but I'm partial to Canon instead of Nikon so...
Just my $0.02
Tom
#10
Posted 17 April 2003 - 05:57 AM
Have you considered a fisheye instead of the 14mm Sigma? Alex has some great examples using a fisheye.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries
#11
Posted 17 April 2003 - 06:33 AM
Mike
Mike Oelrich
Canon EOS 40D in Seatool housing, 100mm macro, Tokina 10-17, INON Z-240s.
#12
Posted 17 April 2003 - 06:36 AM
S&S supports the Sigma 14mm and Canon 15mm fisheye right now, and will soon support the 16-35L (pricey), but not much else in terms of really wide angle. I can probably live without a focus gear, or a zoom gear for some of the other lenses, and I could probably find a place to get one made if I had to.
The issue is that I'm going back to Truk Lagoon in May, and I want to have a solid setup before then. Tough decisions...
#13
Posted 17 April 2003 - 07:11 AM
The standard is called PanoTools. It can be difficult to use, though. An option is Grasshopper ImageAlign. Quite easy to use by comparison. I have both but use ImageAlign as a Photoshop plugin.There was a post a while back about some software that turns fisheye images into rectilinear images. Anyone remember what it was?
Mike
One thing to watch for. The standard advice you read for correcting a fisheye works but it destroys much if its wide angle benefit. The reason is that it maintains the original image dimensions but stretches the image to straighten it out. In order to get maximum wide angle, you need to increase the image size, correct the distortion, then crop the result. This is easier in ImageAlign. The resulting file will be wider that 3:2 but that's to be expected. Sometimes you don't mind the reduction in width and prefer to retain the 3:2 size.
I set up a tripod, shoot a grid, determine my PanoTools/ImageAlign parameters, then create a PS action to straighten the image. After that it's a one-click fix.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries
#14
Posted 17 April 2003 - 01:57 PM
Now that I'm shooting digi, I'm using the 16mm full frame fisheye (20mm equivalent) for wide angle, 24mm (36mm equivalent) for big critters. The 16 has become an everyday tool instead of a specialty lens. I'm anxiously awaiting Nikon's 12-24 (18-36mm equivalent) as an all-around zoom lens to replace the 24-50.
BTW, on land my bread-and-butter lens is Nikon's 24-120.
Eric
www.ehanauer.com
www.ehanauer.com
#15
Posted 17 April 2003 - 03:00 PM
There are two Photoshop plug-ins that I'm aware of that can do this. Once of them is PanoTools that Craig as already mentioned, that you can read more about at this web site and another is called Defish. I couldn't find my original link for them, but you can find a download link from this page. Scroll down to about the middle.There was a post a while back about some software that turns fisheye images into rectilinear images. Anyone remember what it was?
Mike
Both of these programs work quite well to remove distortion, but they can also equally create it. Defish seems to work much better for serious distortion. Both also will degrade the image quality, so be careful.
Bonnie
Correction: Defish is not a Photoshop plug-in, its a standalone application
http://www.underwatercolours.com
Skype address: underwatercolours
#16
Posted 17 April 2003 - 07:22 PM
Yo, Craig -I set up a tripod, shoot a grid, determine my PanoTools/ImageAlign parameters, then create a PS action to straighten the image. After that it's a one-click fix.
Got params for us for various lenses? I have both as well.

#17
Posted 17 April 2003 - 07:24 PM
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries
#18
Posted 17 April 2003 - 08:31 PM
founder of Reef Photo & Video
manufacturer of Zen Domes
distributor of Nauticam in the Americas
n2theblue at reefphoto.com
#19
Posted 17 April 2003 - 09:31 PM
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries