Complete Lens Bag
Posted 17 July 2004 - 09:57 AM
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org
Posted 29 July 2004 - 05:09 AM
I would make several modifications to your lens list.
First - I would substitite the Nikon 24-85 F2.8~4 for the G lens because it has a macro setting (usable from 35mm to 85mm) that allows focusing to very close distances, even with a dome port. And do to an optical quirk in the macro mode the lens actually gets wider as you focus closer with the result that in a 6" dome it is virtually as wide as at 24mm setting with a diopter in non-macro mode.
Second - I would add 200 micro nikkor for small shy critters as the 70-180 also gets wider as you focus closer with the result that the actual working distance from the front of lens to subject at 180mm is less than 105mm for same reproduction size when you get near maximum magnification. I find 200 micro noticably sharper than 70-180 with T5/T6 and working distance much better.
Third - I would also add a 14mm lens, either newer Sigma or Nikon for over/under shots.
Fourth - Add a few Kenko auto extension tubes and a 2x Nikon AF-S converter for shooting 2x~4X lifesize
I agree with 80-400 choice because the 70-200 with a 2x is not as sharp as 80-400 and even if it were, you'd miss shooting opportunities by having to take the time putting the converter on and off and on again.
On longer more serious trips I take doubles of the three zooms I use underwater - 17-35, 24-85, & 70-180.
Posted 29 July 2004 - 02:22 PM
Posted 29 July 2004 - 04:19 PM
For Canon (obviously):
Canon 15mm full-frame fisheye: my favorite WA lens with a cropped sensor camera
Canon 20mm/2.8 USM: great WA lens for full-frame camera
Canon 17-40/4L USM: I have the 16-35, but I like the 17-40 as well. Use with a +2 to +4 diopter, depending on your dome size and lens position
Sigma 50mm macro: does 1:1, unlike Canon's 50mm/2.5 compact macro
Canon 100mm USM macro: I love this macro lens. internal, fast focus. sharp images.
Canon 180 USM macro: just got this lens. haven't tried it yet, but I will soon. Canon 100mm with 2x and extension tube is unwieldy.
Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6L lens: versatile lens for topside shooting. I usually have this lens with me on trips; lots of my Canon-shooting buddies use this as well.
Posted 30 July 2004 - 02:55 AM
Yes, I don't see the reason to get the 17-55. Actually, I have no idea why Nikon decided to make it... anyone?
This is the DX equivalent of their 28-70mm AF-S 2.8, a big, heavy, fast, expensive and popular mid-range zoom. I tried the 28-70mm back in the film days as a walking around mid-range zoom. Too heavy and I really don't shoot mid-range that much.
The 24-85mm AF-S G is a much better walking around lens.
How good was the Nikon image stabilizer and the silent AF before Canon copied them?
Actually, I read somewhere that Nikon developed their VR before Canon did their IS. But Canon managed to produce umpteen actual lenses before Nikon made one. Kind of sums up differences in their respective corporate cultures.
Starter Bag (Cropped Sensor)
18-35mm (or 17-35mm if you have the bucks)
The 12-24mm is too wide for new shooters. They would be better suited to the 18-35mm range, plus it makes a decent fish portrait lens at the long end.
High End Bag
3T and 4T
24-85mm AF-S G (cheap, light)
1.4 and/or 2.0TC
1) I did not include 70-180mm macro and 200mm macro. These are difficult lenses to use. With the cropped sensor you can already go beyond traditional 1:1. Add the 3T or 4T for additional mag and you are getting high mag without the hassles of a TC or trying to manually focus a really long and heavy lens.
2) I chose the 70-200mm over the 80-400mm. It really depends on what you are shooting. If you shoot mostly under 300mm and/or moving objects or low light, the 70-200mm is a better choice. With a 1.4TC you are still faster and have the faster AF.
Posted 30 July 2004 - 05:38 PM
But I wasn't that impressed using this lens underwater. I got a zoom gear for the 24-85 from Subal and tried it out - admittedly only once, two or three dives on one day, and using my full-frame film SLR housing. Results were poor, for me anyway. Not an experiment I'm likely to repeat, though I've keep the zoom gear in case I ever need to use it as a back-up lens.
When I started underwater, I only used prime lenses - the 20 mm and 28 mm for wide-angle, plus the 105 mm for macro. I still like the 20 mm., but nowadays use the 12-24 and 17-35 for digital w/a, and would use the 17-35 with my film housing. I'm still learning to use the 10.5, but it's starting to make sense to me.
Here's my list:
w/a: 10.5 mm f/2.8 DX ED G
12-24 mm f/4 DX ED G
17-35 mm f/2.8 ED
20 mm 2.8 D (no longer used much)
28 mm 2.8 D (no longer used much)
macro: 105 mm 2.8 D (w/ 3T, 4T diopters + 2x teleconverter)
24-85 f/2.8-4 D
12-24 mm f/4 DX ED G (digital only)
17-35 mm f/2.8 ED (digital or film)
50 mm f/1.8 (low-light, lightest weight)
80-400 f/4.5-5.6 D VR
About the only lens still on my "wish list" is the 70-180 macro zoom, but I think I can get by with the 105 mm for awhile yet.
Posted 31 July 2004 - 03:23 AM
Posted 31 July 2004 - 04:28 AM
With all of the rave about the 12-24 and either the 17-35 and 17-55 shouldnt a new D70 buyer leave the kit lens at the photo shop and go home with one of the above. Granted the initial $ will be higher but as they move up the kit lens will become a $300 paper weight.
Well... the kit lens is an 18-70, which with the 1.5 FOV effect gives you an effective 27-105. You get some reach from the 18-70 that none of the lenses you mention provide, while getting almost as wide as the 17-35 and 17-55.
As underwater photographers we tend to focus on the extreme wide and macro, but for the average shooter above water, the kit lens gives a very useful set of focal lengths. As the kit lens is a small variable aperture lens (f3.5-4.5), it is a lot smaller and lighter than the 17-35 or 17-55, which makes it an easier "carry about" lens as well.
I would say get the kit lens, not necessarily with a view to shooting it underwater and the 12-24. This would get you true, very good quality wideangle to a very moderate tele (105 gives a nice FOV for head and shoulders portraiture etc etc).
D300, D200, D70, 12-24 f4 AFS DX, 60mm f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR, 105 f2.8 AF-S VR, Tokina Wunderlens.
Photo galleries @ Ruaux.net
Posted 31 July 2004 - 08:17 AM
The 18-70 is an excellent lens, not just a "good" lens called an excellent value.
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org
Posted 31 July 2004 - 01:07 PM
underwater (fullframe/film EOS):
Sigma 15mm fisheye. Nice close focus ability (15cm)
Sigma 50mm. 1:1, therefore again no Canon
Sigma 15-30, first WW Zoom for my 10D. 17-40 is simply not wide enough
Sigma 12-24, not sooo sharp, simply couldn’t resist, it’s wide, also widest SLR full frame lens ever build.
Canon 28-135 IS USM, still love it, great walkaround range on film, the only stabilized WW, best non L Zoom? But not so versatile anymore on cropped camera.
Canon 50mm, don’t use it, originally thought it simply belongs into a lens bag.
Canon 100-400L IS, wanting just one zoom covering tele stuff, superb lens.
Sigma 18-50, stopped down sharp enough for shooting through 9 layers of cockpit window, where you sometimes simply cannot change lenses Gives little WW & tele. OK for 90 Euros.
Oh – not to forget my old baby, there is some Nikon label in my lens bag – Nikonos 20mm & 35mm.
Posted 03 August 2004 - 03:46 PM
I have had numerous pictures made with this lens published in a variety of magazines. Most recently Diver Magazine in England ran a shot of a Leafy Seadragon as a full double page opener to a story on photographing seadragons.
A bit more than a year ago Patricia Danna, a friend, had a double page spread, also of a Leafy, in the US Sport Diver magazine, and some time before that a picture of a young Galapagos sea lion page plus size in Sport Diver.
I suggest "Frogfish" give the lens another try, or get another sample to try underwater.
Pat and I both use the lens, with both F5 and now the S2. I like it better on the F5 because I find its coverage range more in tune with how I really "see" and prefer to shoot. We use the lens behind Seacam's wideport dome which is about a 6" diameter curve dome and with 60mm of extension tube between the housing body and the dome port. The lens is used only in the macro range where there is no need for diopters. With the S2, which is in an Ikelite housing, we use a homemade ike-to-seacam adapter that keeps the configuration about the same.
I think it is possible that other lenses may be technically sharper, but none with the versatility of this lens. Not having to use a diopter evens that score underwater. And that versatility correlates to shots gotten instead of chances missed. This is also why I use TTL with every lens, not just macro lenses.
Posted 03 August 2004 - 04:05 PM
Haven't heard that rumor but would very much like to hear it NOW! So c'mon Chrism... let it out... are we gonna have a Canon 12-25??? When???? Tell us all you heard and how believeble your source is
Well, I think he's believable.... Rumor is there is a beta version floating around. This was probably 4 months ago that I heard this....And at that time I didn't know what 12-25 was from a hole in the wall
Wish I knew more.
Posted 03 August 2004 - 05:49 PM
Thanks for your post, which has got me thinking. When I tried the 24-85 underwater a few years ago, it was using the smaller Subal dome, with an extension ring. As I recall, I also think I was using a +2 or +3 diopter, which might have been a mistake. The problem wasn't really sharpness, however. More all around lack of contrast, but there were other problems. There wasn't a single keeper on the 2 or 3 rolls I shot that day.
My main interest in trying this lens at that time was to find out whether it might be possible, in a pinch, to shoot an acceptable macro through a dome port, using the 24-85's 1:1.5 macro capability. In other words, to mount the lens for wide angle but retain the capability to shoot close-up or macro. If this had worked, it would have been pretty neat. The macro shots I took that day weren't exactly complete failures, but they weren't very impressive either.
I've recently thought about trying this lens underwater again, but with the bigger dome. It's also easier to dive where I live now, so the "opportunity cost" of this kind of experimentation isn't what it used to be. I guess one thing holding me back has been that I've been so happy with the 12-24 and 17-35 zooms underwater for wide angle, and have also been experimenting with the 10.5 fisheye. If I did try the 24-85 underwater again, it would only be with my film SLR housing, not the S2. Like you, I don't see this range as terribly useful for 1.5x framed digital.
Also, the lens extends in length quite a bit through the zoom range, so I suspect that it would be necessary to select an extension ring that would optimise for one end. Befire, I would have said that obviously the end to optimise for should be the wide end, but it sounds like you and Pat are actually using the 24-85 as a macro +close-up lens. Are you also shooting it in a flat port? I hadn't thought of this before, but I will now.
As I said, the lens is still my favorite "walking around" lens above water.
Posted 04 September 2004 - 06:44 AM
For Nikon type 1:5
10.5mm fF:2,8 Fisheye
60mm F:2,8 micro Nikkor
105mm F:2,8 micro Nikkor
and 70-180 micro Nikkor wich is my only zoom concession.
For FF skip the 10.5mm and go 16mm Fisheye instead
Entry level, well by all mean use zoom lens, make sense moneywise and sincerely think it as to to with commitment in the end, how much are you willing to spend on U/W photography gears :?:
Aquatica D100 & S2pro, A90 Housing, 10.5mm, 14mm, 20mm, 60mm Micro, 105mm Micro, 4X Nikonos SB-105 & 4X Ikelite Ai strobes
Posted 13 September 2004 - 04:51 AM
Nodal point alignement is constantly shifting in a zoom optical formula.
What about the Nikon 12-24 DX zoom? The front element does not move during zooming, therefore (IMHO) the nodal point does not change. Or am I missing something?
Posted 13 September 2004 - 05:35 AM
In addition to the wonderful 12-24 DX, the front element of the equally (or perhaps more) spectacular Nikon 17-35 mm also doesn't much when the lenx is zoomed. I haven't had any of the problems I experienced with the 24-85 zoom with either of these two lenses.
Posted 13 September 2004 - 06:38 AM
Interesting. I recently bought the Nikon 18-70 DX and used it with my S2 behind the Aquatica 8 inch dome, with a +4 diopter. I got some really nice results, and both extremes of the zoom range. The 18-70 changes nodal point by at least 1 1/2 inches over the zoom range. I have ordered a 6 inch dome with the objective of making a more compact rig for general "fish portraits through close up" use. I'll post results when I get to try the setup next month in Roatan.