14 replies to this topic

[Steen Nissen]

I have just booked myself on a 9 day liveaboard to Socorro on the Rocio Del Mar. Leaving March 2013.
i wonder what lenses to bring.
I use a D90, and I have the Sigma 17-70, and Tokina 10-17
My question is, Will I find any use for the 17-70 ? is the 10-17 enough for the whole trip, or do I need a new lens, like the Nikon 12-24 ?
I dont expect I need any macro lens ?

Thanks
Steen

[JackConnick]

Last time I was there I shot both those lenses on a D300 and they worked fine. Since then, I've gravitated to shooting the 10-17 + a Kenko 1.4 instead of the 17-70 as it is far sharper. You won't have the reach, but you really want to get closer anyway. You definately do not want the 12-24, doesn't focus that close.

Here's a couple of shots for comparison:

17-70:

Manta Eye.2 by Pixel Letch, on Flickr

10-17:

Manta Head shot by Pixel Letch, on Flickr

Jack

[Steen Nissen]

Thanks for that info. I guess I'm covered.
Nice photos, especially the first one.

Steen

[tdpriest]

At a pinch, and unless the visibility is spectacular, you could do very nicely with just the Tokina 10-17mm.






I shot everything with a Nikon 10.5mm and a teleconverter when I was in the Revillagigedos Is.






I dived from Solmar V. It's a great place...

Edited by tdpriest, 07 October 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Alex_Tattersall]

That hammer is lovely Tim!

[Bent C]

I agree with Alex, what a beautiful hammerhead!

[JackConnick]

I agree that the 10-17 + a teleconverter would be what I'd take. Maybe shoot the 60mm micro behind a dome for sharks...

Jack

[bfdc]

...... You definately do not want the 12-24, doesn't focus that close.

Jack

Hi Jack...could you explain the comment about the 12-24 please? Granted, it has other issues (sharp corners, etc) but It focuses to 1 foot and I would think with the shots that you showed (large animals) that is way more than enough? Am headed there in 2014....and am just curious....

thx

[bfdc]

Tim,
what dome/housing were you using with your 10.5mm/teleconverter combination?
thx

[JackConnick]

Mainly very bad corner issues and general sharpness. IMHO, you really want a lens that focuses to about 9 or 9.5" behind a dome. It will shoot ok in blue water, I jhust think there are better choices.

Jack

[Deep6]

Hi Jack...could you explain the comment about the 12-24 please? Granted, it has other issues (sharp corners, etc) but It focuses to 1 foot and I would think with the shots that you showed (large animals) that is way more than enough? Am headed there in 2014....and am just curious....

thx

I use to use the Nikkor 12-24 with a +4 diopter in a 170 mm port. I now use the Tonk 10-17 w & w/o 1.4x TC in a 4.33" dome (The Bare Dome). Much better IMHO.
Bob

Edited by Deep6, 08 October 2012 - 07:53 AM.

[jcclink]

Ditto for the 12-24 Nexus setup. The +4 diopter enables lens to focus close & also sharpens edges. I've always had good luck with that lens. But I also now use the 10-17 with mini dome. This is much more convenient for travel & gives great results.

[JackConnick]

Again, better choices out there. A good quality 77mm (?) +4 diopter is going to cost $150+ or so. And possibly introduce some abberations and chroma to the shots.
I love the lens above water, just not my choice uw. YMMV.

Jack

[bfdc]

thx for the answers on the 12-24 everyone!

[Udo van Dongen]

thx for the answers on the 12-24 everyone!

if you're thinking of getting a rectilinear WA lens, i'd suggest to forget about the Nikon 12-24 and get the 10-24 (also Nikon) instead. It focusses closer (no need for diopters), has a bigger range and in the range from 12-24 it's supposed to be as sharp as the 12-24 mm f/4.0. It's also cheaper and slightly lighter. Only drawback is that it's not a f/4.0 over the full range but f/3.5-4.5 (is that a drawback actually??).

cheers, Udo