Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Complete Lens Bag


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:23 AM

So how does this sound for a "high end" underwater shooter's lens bag. This is assuming a FF camera:

16mm Fisheye
17-35 f2.8 AF-S
24-85 f3.5 AF-S
80-400 f4-5.6 AF-S VR

Macro:
70-180 Micro AF-D
105mm Micro AF-D
TC1.4
TC 2
Nikon 5T and 6T Diopters

For a 1.5x cropped sensor camera, I would substitute

12-24DX f4 AF-S for the 17-35
I might also inlude the 60mm.

How does that sound?

Anyone care to post their thoughts on an "entry level" bag?

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#2 Craig Ruaux

Craig Ruaux

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:49 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing the 80-400VR in a housing :D :)

"Entry Level"

12-24 (assuming a cropped FOV, Nikon F-mount camera)
60mm Macro
Nikon 5T and 6T Diopters
70-300 f4.5-5.6 (the ED one, not the cheapo one)


James, If you haven't already bought it, and I didn't bankrupt you with the 17-35... I would personally go for the 70-200 AFS VR f2.8 rather than the 80-400. If you've got the teleconverters (1.4 and 2) you'll get to 400 @ f5.6 with the 70-200 plus TC2, the 80-400 VR is f5.6 at 400mm. The VR on the 70-200 is better (second generation) than that in the 80-400 as well. The 80-400 is a screwdriver focus, and slow on the f/N80 derived bodies, don't know what it will do on the SLR/n...
Why would I take a perfectly good camera underwater??
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

#3 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:14 AM

I started with

Sigma 15mm FE
Sigma 50mm macro
Sigma 105mm macro

All three for under $1000. I've only used the 105mm on a couple of dives.

Just bought Tamron 1.4x and 2x TC.

Tried out the 2x and 105mm yesturday. The combination will do 2:1; that's frame filling around 1cm ! It'll get down to 3:1, below 1 cm with the 1.4x stacked on. I'll probably have to wait for my next tropical dive to try these. I don't think I have a chance of getting anything in focus with the current and surge in typical Monterey conditions.
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#4 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:22 AM

I'd substitute the 10.5mm for the 16mm on a 1.5x body.

Entry level is kind of tough. I would have to assume at entry level we're talking a 1.5x sensor body and that price is also a consideration. Certainly the 60mm is a good entry level macro lens. The 12-24 would be a good wide-angle choice but is probably too costly to be considered entry level. The 10.5 is a difficult lens for an entry level user.

I'd be interested in other peoples suggestions for an entry level wide-angle 1.5x.

Larry

#5 Ryan

Ryan

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Lauderdale, FL

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:25 AM

Craig hit the nail on the head with the 70-200 AFS VR, I definately second that choice. The 80-400 is not AF-S...

I'd also look into Nikon's announced 1.7x TC that loses less than a stop of light. I have one preordered one from a local store...

My high end APS list would be:
Nikkor 10.5DX Fisheye
Nikkor 12-24 AF-S DX
Nikkor 17-55 AF-S DX
Nikkor 105mm/2.8
Nikkor 70-180 Macro Zoom
Nikkor 70-200 AFS VR /2.8

My APS Starter Set would be:
Sigma 15mm Diagonal Fisheye
Nikkor 60

founder of Reef Photo & Video
manufacturer of Zen Domes

distributor of Nauticam in the Americas

 

n2theblue at reefphoto.com


#6 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:46 AM

Ryan,

That would be a nice lens bag indeed. The only thing I might quarrel with is the 17-55 AF-S DX. I would choose the 17-35 instead because it's closer focusing ability.

Larry
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200

#7 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:56 AM

I'd also look into Nikon's announced 1.7x TC that loses less than a stop of light.  I have one preordered one from a local store...


That would be quite a neat trick! According to the specs on the Nikon site below the 1.7x teleconverter has a "Minimal effect on f-number of 1.5 stops". I don't see anything special about this, other than that it is between 2x and 1.4x.

http://www.nikonusa....oductNr=TC17EII
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#8 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:58 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 a great thread so far guys.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#9 Craig Ruaux

Craig Ruaux

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 11:06 AM

Actually, I have no idea why Nikon decided to make it... anyone?


Because they are selling them by the bucket-load :D

17-55 is a DX lens, 17-35 is full frame. 17-55 on an APS sensor camera gives 25.5 to 82.5 mm in a reasonably compact, fast and light(ish) lens. Good for street photography/photojournalism. Wide enough at the wide end to be usable, long enough at the long end to shoot a head+shoulders/upper torso shot over or through a scrum of other people.

None of these attributes are important to the somewhat rarified world of underwater photography.
Why would I take a perfectly good camera underwater??
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

#10 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 16 July 2004 - 11:17 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 a great thread so far guys.

Cheers
James


Because Canon packaged the DRebel with a 18-55 lens.
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#11 Craig Ruaux

Craig Ruaux

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 11:42 AM

Because Canon packaged the DRebel with a 18-55 lens.


ROFLOLWTSFME.....

Sorry, Herb, but you can't honestly perceive the 17-55 f2.8 AFS DX ($1400 at a retailer near you :shock:) as an answer to the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 EFS ($900 including the dREB body at a retailer near you).

Why did Ford make the GTO?

Because Fiat came out with the Tipo :roll:

Thanks for a great laugh Herb, really brightened my Friday :wink:
Why would I take a perfectly good camera underwater??
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

#12 tshepherd

tshepherd

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Location:Westfield, NJ, USA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 11:46 AM

Beginner kit for a Canon 1.6x (DReb, 10D, D60, D30):

18-55 kit lens
Sigma 50mm macro (or swap for 100/105mm macro to avoid duplication
15mm FE

Higher end kit for Canon 1.6x:
15mm FE
Sigma 12-24 (assuming housing supports it)
Canon 17-40L (or 16-35L)
Canon 100mm macro

I'd actually stick with the same extended kit for a FF or 1.3x Canon as well. Maybe add an extension tube or TC to get higher magnification macro.

Because Canon packaged the DRebel with a 18-55 lens

Maybe to produce a high quality lens that approximates what the Canon 24-70L(sorry don't know the Nikon equiv) works out to on film?

Tom

#13 MikeVeitch

MikeVeitch

    1.7kbps Manta Boy

  • Senior Moderator
  • 6186 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Bali, Indonesia but from Vancouver, BC
  • Interests:Teaching Underwater Photography

Posted 16 July 2004 - 12:10 PM

All Nikkor lenses

18-35 I'm too cheap for the 17-35 and don't see the need for 2.8 on that lens as rarely see the need to shoot that fast underwater or on land with that lens.
20mm 2.8
24-120 mm no underwater
60mm
80-200mm 2.8 no underwater
THis is the fast lens for land stuff
1.4x teleconverter
Would be nice to have a longer lens but with long lenses having 2.8 is important but way too pricey at this point, now then if anyone wants to buy a lot of prints maybe i can get one... :D
Haven't bought digital lenses for the D70 as of yet, 18-35 great lens for most shark shots etc, if i need to go wider i still use my Nikonos and 15mm (yes i know film bad bad bad) still sharpest WA ever made and beats autofocus anyday for real fast action stuff, check out shark feeding shots on my website to to see what i mean, would never have been able to focus with SLR on some of em

Join us for an Underwater Photography Workshop in Ambon March 2015
Blog and Photo Archive/Portfolio Site www.mikeveitchblog.com
Learn underwater photography in Indonesia or Join me on a trip www.underwatertribe.com


#14 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 16 July 2004 - 12:24 PM



Because Canon packaged the DRebel with a 18-55 lens.


ROFLOLWTSFME.....

Sorry, Herb, but you can't honestly perceive the 17-55 f2.8 AFS DX ($1400 at a retailer near you :shock:) as an answer to the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 EFS ($900 including the dREB body at a retailer near you).


Isn't $70 -> $1400 the usual Nikon markup? :D
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#15 chrism

chrism

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 16 July 2004 - 01:44 PM

Hey guys, while you're spending my money, anyone know anything about a rumor I heard (ahem) about a Canon 12-25??

Chris

#16 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 16 July 2004 - 03:06 PM

Hi Chris,

Actually, when Canon copies a Nikon lens, they usu ally try to one up them. Like they come out w/ the 16-35 to one-up Nikon's 17-35. Nikon does a 16mm fisheye, so they do a 15mm fisheye...

So you'd think they'd go for an 11-26, right? lol!

Sorry, couldn't resist. This one's for you Herb!

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#17 davephdv

davephdv

    Doc Eyeballs

  • Senior Moderator
  • 2288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goleta CA

Posted 16 July 2004 - 04:49 PM

My bag for D100

Wide angles 12-24, 10.5x Dx lenses

Macro 60 mm

Surface: 80-400, 17-35 as walk around lens though I would rather have the 17-55.

Backup: 105 macro. !.5x or 35 mm I prefer the 60 mm. This is only good for very small skittsh subjects. For 35 mm I also used the 24-85 1/2 macro. You could shoot most of your wide angle and most of your macro.

A 70-180 macro and 70-200 VR would be nice.
Dave Burroughs, Nikon D300, D2X, Subal housing, DS160 strobes

Life is a beach and then you dive.

My Website


#18 Cp

Cp

    Eagle Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoFL

Posted 16 July 2004 - 06:36 PM

I have the 70-180 and 12-24, set up for use in my Nexus. (I also have the 24-85G and the 70-300ED for use on land). I have an opportunity to buy a gently used 60mm, with the Nexus focus ring, for a good price. Why would I use the 60 over the 70-180? I'm thinking I may buy it with the idea that if I don't like it, I could always unload it on eBay. Any opinions?

Cp

Chris Parsons
Nauticam USA / Zen Underwater
innovation at nauticamusa
www.nauticamusa.com
954-489-8678

 


#19 whitey

whitey

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Port Hedland in Australia's Northwest
  • Interests:All forms of nature photography. Dive medicine. The ocean.

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:14 PM

My google search reveals that you're the only one on earth who has heard this rumor!

Having said that, it's a logical lens addition to the Canon line up and I'll buy it when they make it. :D

My nominations for Canon lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L
Canon 100mm USM macro
Canon or Sigma 15mm Fisheye

Can add the Canon 50mm macro (not all that attractive if you already have a wide angle zoom that will do 1:4 plus crop factor, or so goes my thinking today)

Can use the 18-55 EF-S if you own one of those plastic toy 'Rebels' or are handy with a hacksaw and epoxy :)

Other than the above, there's not a lot of other focal lengths that cry out to be included in the underwater Canon DSLR shooter's bag.

Rob Whitehead

Shooting with Phase One and Canon. EWA-Marine Factory Test Pilot.

www.pilbaraphoto.com


#20 Jolly

Jolly

    Lightning Kraut

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 July 2004 - 04:17 AM

Hi Chris,

Actually, when Canon copies a Nikon lens, they usu ally try to one up them.  Like they come out w/ the 16-35 to one-up Nikon's 17-35.  Nikon does a 16mm fisheye, so they do a 15mm fisheye...

So you'd think they'd go for an 11-26, right? lol!

Sorry, couldn't resist.  This one's for you Herb!

Cheers
James


oh really? How good was the Nikon image stabilizer and the silent AF before Canon copied them?
I guess their own branded full frame sensors were very quickly copied by Canon? :) :D
sorry, you are right, really hard to resist :)
| Canon 5D I+II / Sealux CC5-GD I+II custom converted | 2x Ikelite DS-125 | ULCS |