Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Lenses?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 24 February 2012 - 08:21 AM

I am contemplating housing an SLR (D7000)and want to get peoples thoughts on what lense to purchase.

I read nothing but good reviews/feedback about the Tokina 10-17 lense and am thinking about getting this, but may get another as well.

I am off to the Red Sea in June hopefully to see the Oceanics again and want to get some good pictures of them, so a lense to help here is a must in my eyes at the moment, what do people suggest.

Also is the kit lense any good underwater?

Many thanks

#2 ATJ

ATJ

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Location:Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
  • Interests:Diving, Photograph, Marine Biology

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

Either 60mm (the old or the new) are brilliant underwater.

#3 johnspierce

johnspierce

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:52 AM

I agree with what Andrew just said... the 60mm is a must have for Nikon DX I think. Next up I would say Tokina 10-17 which is also wonderful, then 105mm VR.

Nikon D800 | Aquatica Housing | Inon Z-240


#4 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:38 PM

Can you give me an idea of what subjects suit the 60 mm?

Am I looking at small to medium fish, with nudis also a possibility?

#5 ATJ

ATJ

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Location:Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
  • Interests:Diving, Photograph, Marine Biology

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:58 PM

Nudibranchs, small to medium fish, cuttlefish, octopus, seahorses, corals, sea stars, crabs, shrimp...

Basically anything from 15mm to 150mm in length, and even larger in clear water.

Edited by ATJ, 24 February 2012 - 12:59 PM.


#6 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:22 PM

That sounds like a very versatile lense then, many thanks for the info

#7 Steve Jones

Steve Jones

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:25 PM

If you are limited to 2 lenses and want to shoot Oceanics, as your post implies, then you will find the 60 too long for them. The Tokina will be of use at the 17mm end (depending on how comfortable you are close up to them). Generally I find mid range zooms such as the 17-55 or the 17-35 used on DX format, are good for mid sized sharks. If your kit lens is an 18-55, this may well be a good option, although you may need a close up lens depending on the size of your dome (I've never used the 18-55 underwater but other wetpixellers might have). Wide rectilinear zooms such as the 12-24 will also be of great use (moreso than the Tokina when it comes to shooting Oceanics)

Hope this helps

Steve
Steve Jones
www.millionfish.com - millionfish@hotmail.com
Nikon - Seacam

#8 Chriso

Chriso

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Australia

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:25 PM

I am also shooting the D7000

My advice would be to get the following setups and shoot one or the other for the dive, you will get better images if you just concentrate on one discipline for the duration instead of trying to compromise and shoot everything you see with a zoom lens. There is always going to be another dive to get that shot.

- The Nikkor 60mm Marco for grubby water and fish portraits.
- The Nikoor 105mm Macro for clear water and standing off from your subject, add the Canon 250D diopter for the really small stuff and to lessen your working distance to the subject.
- Tokina 10-17 fisheye for the wide stuff + a 1.4 tele-convertor and mini dome for CFWA if that takes your fancy

Some shots from our latest trip to Raja Ampat with the above lens's
http://www.uwphotog.com/p412076511

Edited by Chriso, 24 February 2012 - 04:35 PM.


#9 john70490

john70490

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gothenburg, Sweden

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:01 AM

The ridiculously cheap Nikon 18-55 works very well underwater if you add a +4 diopter and your housing manufacturer makes a suitable dome port. The optics are excellent and it is incredibly flexible (enables me to take everything from almost macro to moderately wide angle). It has become my favourite general purpose lens for clear tropical waters. I love my Tokina 10-17mm but you need to get very close if you want to take decent shark shots.

Edited by john70490, 25 February 2012 - 12:03 AM.

Olympus E-MP1, 14-42mm and Micro 60mm lenses, Olympus PT-EP06 housing with standard port, dual Sea & Sea YS-01 strobes, La Luz Optics L-800 and Light-For-Me 3XML video lights.
Web album: http://johngulliver.smugmug.com/


#10 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:58 AM

Many thanks for the replies, lots of things to think about.

Oceanics are my main focus for the next trip, let's just hope they appear! I am also hoping to see the grey reefs as well, but I don't think I will get close enough to get any good pictures of these.

With regards to the suggested lenses for the Oceanics (12-24mm, 18-35mm) do they get housed in the dome like the Tokina?

I only want to take 2 lenses really due to limits (money, weight) and don't want to put all my eggs in one basket, I am thinking the Tokina is a given due to the options of the wide angle opportunities, it's what decision on the second lense???

#11 AndyBarker

AndyBarker

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bury St Edmunds Suffolk UK
  • Interests:Diving , Photography , Fishing ,

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:15 AM

Hi,
You can always use a photographers jacket which normally have loads of pockets which is what I use & many
Others I dive with do the same. As far us lens go I use my 105 Nikon micro more than my 60mm. I also use
10/17fe & 12/24 both these lens are great for shooting big stuff just as long as you have the correct dome &
The lens is in the correct position for the curvature of the port, I know people talk about sharpness around the
Edges with WA lens, but I use a wide port with a 35mm extender with a 4x diopter & get great results.
Regards,
Andy :lol:

Andy Barker
D800, Seacam,S45, Nikon 60mm micro, Nikon VR 105mm micro, Nikon 16x35mm, Nikon 16mm, fe, Seaflash 150ttl & Seacam flash arms


#12 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 25 February 2012 - 05:12 AM

The ridiculously cheap Nikon 18-55 works very well underwater if you add a +4 diopter and your housing manufacturer makes a suitable dome port.


I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

Tim

:lol:

#13 ChrigelKarrer

ChrigelKarrer

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Playa Herradura-Costa Rica and Sardinia-Italy

Posted 25 February 2012 - 06:48 AM

I shoot on my D7000 in a Hugyfot housing:


- Tokina 12-24mm
I like this lens as it is a rectilinear lens and give almost no distortion even at 12 mm above and under water,
but she need the right dome to get rid of soft corners (Ikelite Tokina 12-24mm port for example).

- Tokina 100 mm macro
(replaced my Nikon 105mm Micro NON VR with fungus problems)

I would like to play around with the
SIGMA 15mm diagonal fisheye http://www.sigmaphot...l-fisheye-sigma
SIGMA 10mm fisheye http://www.sigmaphot...m-fisheye-sigma

I think that both lenses are very promising, but it may be difficult to find the right dome for them as they are not widely used in UW Photography.


Chris

Nikon D800 - Sigma 15mm - Nikon 105mm Micro VR - Hugyfot Housing - 3 Inon Z-240 strobes - 2x2 8'' ULCS arms

Canon G12 with Patima aluminium housing - Fuji E900 with Ikelite housing
Visit My Costa Rica Website - Visit My Italy Website


#14 Timmoranuk

Timmoranuk

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near NDAC, South Wales
  • Interests:Technical diving; open circuit and rebreather, U/W photography, topside photography, travel, aviation and sailing.

Posted 25 February 2012 - 07:45 AM

I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

Tim

:lol:


I agree with Tim.The Sigma equivalent; the 17-70 is the least used of my glass. I wouldn't be without it for a topside walk around lens but underwater it quickly loses its appeal... If I am going to shoot fish portraits, which is what I had intended it for, I now prefer to mount my 60mm or even 100mm behind a flat port and be able to tackle macro subjects too. Maybe two Tims dining on corvids tonight?

HTH, Tim
· Canon 5D3, 7D & Nauticam housings. Sigma 15mm, Canon 16-35mm, Tokina 10-17mm, Sigma 8-16mm, Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 70-200mm, Sigma 120-300mm, Canon 60mm & 100mm
· INON Z-240s & Sea & Sea YS-250 Pros
· SmallHD DP4 monitor & NA-DP4. Fisheye Aquavolt 3500s & 7000s
· Zen DP-100, DP-200 & DP-230

#15 ATJ

ATJ

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Location:Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
  • Interests:Diving, Photograph, Marine Biology

Posted 25 February 2012 - 02:41 PM

I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

I find my 18-55mm lens to be extremely useful around Sydney where the viz is frequently poor but there is a range of subject sizes. The water is generally not clear enough to go much longer than 55mm except for very small subjects (where the 60mm macro does a better job). Going much wider than 18mm often results is lighting the particulate matter at the edges - at least that's what I've found with the few times I've used my 10-17mm around Sydney.

I love using my 60mm but am often frustrated by finding larger subjects - e.g. giant cuttlefish, Port Jackson and wobbegong sharks. With the 18-55mm I can still shoot them and most small subjects.

Here are some examples of shots taken with the 18-55mm with a +5 diopter in a 6" dome port.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#16 johnspierce

johnspierce

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:37 PM

Very impressive photos Andrew! Love the pregnant seahorse.

This makes me wonder how the excellent Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would perform underwater.

John

Edited by johnspierce, 25 February 2012 - 04:38 PM.

Nikon D800 | Aquatica Housing | Inon Z-240


#17 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:11 AM

Andrew, I am loving the long nose hawk! I am still yet to find one of them!

From what I can gather now it's looking like 3 lenses, the Tokina, the 60mm macro lense and another if I can afford it/fit it in mt luggage.

I notice that the Tokina and 60mm macro have specific ports, is this possible with these other general lenses? I am looking at nauticam ports.

#18 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:54 AM

I'd go with the Tokina, the Tokina and 1.4x teleconverter and the 60mm macro to begin (and then add a 105mm macro later).

I personally use the Zen 100mm minidome for 95% of wide angle now with the Tokina alone and the Tokina plus teleconverter. I had a spell of using the Sigma 17-70 with a large dome but this has mostly been superseded by the Tokina and teleconverter.

I'm not sure if you are upgrading from a compact and are still hoping for the wet lens flexibility that the compact can offer but I've found that quite quickly you begin to change the way you think about photography and really get a wide angle or a macro head on you when you go into the water. The you start really focusing on opportunities that the lens you have can give you.

All the WA shots in these series are with the Tok and tele

http://www.flickr.co...57628538019053/
http://www.flickr.co...57627275123036/

So you can get dramatic frame fillers
Posted Image

Great for Close FOcus Wide angle
Posted Image
www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#19 Longimanus1975

Longimanus1975

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:53 AM

Alex

Many thanks for this, adds another option that is possible and probably a better option than buying another lense.

Is there a nauticam dome that can do both with and without the converter?

#20 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:37 PM

No, you need to add a 20mm extension and a different zoom gear with the teleconverter

Alex
www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland