Warren_L

If it helps - here is a gallery of some of the images I have taken this year with the D700. If you run the slide show - the file names (put mouse over pictures) will show you what lenses I used for the various photos:

http://www.amustard....l&subpage=photo

So far I have shot the Sigma 15mm fisheye and Nikon 16mm fisheye, occasionally with a 1.5x teleconverter fitted, Nikon 17-35mm with +3 and +4 dioptres, Nikon 20mm with +4 dioptre, Sigma 28-70mm with +3 and +4 dioptres, Nikon 60mm AFS, Nikon 105mm AFS VR and Sigma 150mm macro lens. I used the Nikon 5T and Canon 500D dioptres, sometimes stacked together.

Alex

Alex, I am curious about your take on the Nikon 16mm FE versus the Sigma 15mm FE. I've only used the Sigma on land, so I cannot really speak to the Sigma for underwater use. I migrated from a DX body a couple of years ago and loved my Nikon 10.5mm FE, but I don't think my shots are as crisp with the 16mm.

Thanks for that guys.

The 105 is definitely on my list.

How about wide angle? Would a prime lens be more applicable than a zoom, such as the venerable 14-24??

Perhaps I'm penny pinching, but getting the 14-24 would mean an extension port for the zoom gear.

In the past, I'd always stuck to prime lenses, but maybe now, things have changed.

Although I own a D3 and not a D700, I think in way of lens discussions they would be identical. I also use an Aquatica housing for my D3....

The Nikon 14-24mm is going to be more difficult to get results you're going to be happy with, simply because the lens cannot accept standard front mount diopters. Being a rectilinear lens, the corners are going to be soft with any aperature pretty well larger than f/8. I went to a larger dome port (9.25" megadome) to help with the corner sharpness issue and acceptable sharpness can be had at f/8 or smaller. However, for topside photography, the 14-24mm is probably my most used lens. It is one amazing piece of glass, but for underwater use, it has certain limitations.

For wide angle my preference is the Nikon 16mm FE, although the Sigma 15mm FE will likely do just as good a job.

Hey,

i am about bulding a DSLR setup and now i choose lense.
My mainly focus will be on macro life and i am between 60mm and 100 mm macro lense.
What you believe that will be better for this work?
Other solutions (50mm compact macro CANON)?

Thanks

Dimitris Poursanidis

If you're shooting a cropped sensor dSLR I'd go for the 60mm first. More versatile. If full frame, the 100mm has a similar angle of view with less depth of field.

On dpreview.com one of the specs they list for cameras is Pixel Density. When I do a side by side comparison of the D200 D300 and D700 their pixel density is 2.7 MP/cm² 3.3 MP/cm², and 1.4 MP/cm² respectively.
Is more or less better?

Is there an relationship between pixel density and noise? i.e. Why has the D700 got far better high ISO capabilities?

Is there any relationship between pixel density and depth of field? Why do smaller sensors have better dof?

Thanks for any help

Mary

There are many factors that affect the quality of image a particular sensor produces. Pixel density gives you an idea of how closely packed the photosites on a sensor are. In general, a lower pixel density is better (but not always as there are other factors that affect sensor quality). With more space between the centre of adjacent pixels means each pixel can be bigger - which can result in better high ISO performance.

I assume when you say "better" DOF you are really referring to "larger" DOF. Larger DOF is only better if that's what you require for the type of shots you're doing. In actuality, sensor size has nothing to do with DOF. The reason why you tend to get larger DOF with a smaller sensor is because you tend to use shorter focal lengths to achieve the same angle of view as compared to a larger sensor, which would require a correspondingly longer focal length. It is the use of shorter focal lengths that gives you this difference in DOF.

I have used this lens underwater before (I don't own it anymore as I've sold off most of my DX lenses). It's not bad for a starter lens, but it's really not all that wide, especially on a DX body. It will do ok for some seascape type shots and portraits. It's not bad when you're not sure what you're going to see. It's also not a super fast lens at f/4, and the build quality is that of a consumer lens. But it is inexpensive and not a huge risk if you decide later to go with something else.