Nikon 35mm f2.0 with a Sea and Sea 8" dome...

[bfdc 6]

...how do you think a 35mm f2.0 nikon lens would perform in my S&S and the big dome port? the lens is not listed on the S&S system chart. angle on land with a DX camera is 44 degrees

 

would it work?

 

thx

[jbonehoss 0]

Hey, not sure if it helps, but I use a 17-35 2.8 zoom in that port with an extension. No problem at either end. I guess it depends on exactly where the lens sits - the 17-35 is pretty long.

[bfdc 6]

Hey, not sure if it helps, but I use a 17-35 2.8 zoom in that port with an extension. No problem at either end. I guess it depends on exactly where the lens sits - the 17-35 is pretty long.

 

that's a thought...

 

the 35mm is 2.5 x 1.7 in (w x length)

the 24mm is 2.5 x 1.8 in (w x length) and is listed in the system chart with the 8" dome and no extensions

the 20mm is 2.7 x 2.7 in (w x length) and is listed in the system chart with the 8" dome and no extensions

 

so the 35mm is a bit shorter..

[Rocha 0]

I am sure it would work with no extension, but take it to the nearest pool just to make sure. Also, check what its closest focal distance is, if it is longer than the 24 and 20 you will probably need a close-up diopter to be able to focus in the virtual image created by the dome.

 

Now, I don't see this lens as a very useful one for underwater, the focal length is neither wide nor macro, and it is best wide open, so I don't see much use for it unless you are planning to shoot on wide apertures with ambient light.

[bfdc 6]

I am sure it would work with no extension, but take it to the nearest pool just to make sure. Also, check what its closest focal distance is, if it is longer than the 24 and 20 you will probably need a close-up diopter to be able to focus in the virtual image created by the dome.

 

Now, I don't see this lens as a very useful one for underwater, the focal length is neither wide nor macro, and it is best wide open, so I don't see much use for it unless you are planning to shoot on wide apertures with ambient light.

 

 

.85 ft for both the 20mm and 35mm

1 ft for the 24mm

 

yup, the intent is available light.....not sure about if there is an appropriate subject -- just thought I'd carry it along. I was thinking something to play with just beyond my 12-24mm...and liked the extra speed over the 28mm f2.8

[Paul Kay 44]

35/2 lenses will work behind both dome and flat ports - they make excellent 'small habitat' lenses and are very underated as they often focus close - you can add a diopter to reduce this further - are small so don't need extenders, light and pretty cheap. Add good performance, short water column and pretty quick focus. I've used both Canon and Nikon and now have Canon's 35/2 & 35/1.4 - which also works very well (but does need an extender tube!).

[fdog 3]

As you've probabally noticed, the latest "trend" in journalism is shooting with a just-short-of-wafer-thin depth of field.

 

The OP's question has me actively thinking of transplanting this underwater. However there's a lot of "management" of focus zones that I do to make this work topside. Hmmm.

 

All the best, James

[Paul Kay 44]

The cynical side of me wonders whether the fact that shooting at large apertures just so happens to produce images which show up sensor dust least has any bearing on its trendiness (I do like shooting at fast apertures in low light myself though and this is undoubtedly a lot easier which digital cameras).

[fdog 3]

The cynical side of me wonders whether the fact that shooting at large apertures just so happens to produce images which show up sensor dust least has any bearing on its trendiness (I do like shooting at fast apertures in low light myself though and this is undoubtedly a lot easier which digital cameras).

Not an unfair question Paul.

 

I can state that for me, and those I work with, that has never really entered my mind.

 

It's all about being a sheep, really. Years ago it was the wildly tilted camera frame, before that it was the spot of bright saturated color, and before that it was the high-contrast image. Baaaaaa. One guy does it, gets an award like Press Photographer of the Year, and soon we're all part of the thundering herd.

 

Actually, if you saw the way the typical journalist (sadly, myself included) treats their equipment, including sensor cleanliness, you would be appalled. There's a reason that some retailers refer to some used equipment as "press corps ugly"!

 

All the best, James

[bfdc 6]

35/2 lenses will work behind both dome and flat ports - they make excellent 'small habitat' lenses and are very underated as they often focus close - you can add a diopter to reduce this further - are small so don't need extenders, light and pretty cheap. Add good performance, short water column and pretty quick focus. I've used both Canon and Nikon and now have Canon's 35/2 & 35/1.4 - which also works very well (but does need an extender tube!).

 

...as a followup on this, back from my trip where I used the 35mm/f2 in both the flat and dome ports on my S&S/Nikon D-50 and found it to be very usable. In fact, on night dives, with "fish/lobster size" subjects, and manually shooting with high f/stop, close strobe to subject distances, the 35mm actually worked a bit better for me than the 60 mm. The 60mm ended up being to much power for full body critter shots. The 60mm worked fine for smaller or more timid stuff.

 

Ergo, for the cropped sensor cameras, don't throw those 35mm in the bin quite yet! Your 35mm now works like a 52mm which is pretty close (sans macro) of what the 60mm was with film.

 

Paul

Edited February 19, 2007 by bfdc