Best Lenses to Use in Cozumel

[ornate_wrasse 0]

Hi all,

 

I'll be taking my D70S to Cozumel next month and plan to use it for the very first time uw (my Subal housing should be arriivng any day now).

 

I own a 10.5, 60 and 105 Macro lenses for uw use. It was pointed out to me by the workshop instructor that there is a gap between the 10.5 and the other lenses for coverage. I'm not sure whether I want to buy a Tokina 10-17 zoom lens or a Prime lens as mentioned above so I want to hold off on buying a lens to bridge the gap. I was considering renting a Nikon 16mm or a Sigma 15mm lens for this trip. The cost of the rental is a big huge negative, but OTOH, if I don't like the lens, it will save me $$$ and the trouble of having to sell it.

 

What do you think about renting a lens to bridge the gap between my WA 10.5 and the other lenses?

I'd also be interested in hearing what lenses worked best for you in Coz.

 

Tanks!

 

Ellen

[Lionfish43 0]

I think your 10.5 is very well suited for cozumel. Here are a couple of examples of shots with the 10.5 from my trip to cozumel last year.

 

 

 

here one with the sigma 15

Edited July 4, 2007 by Lionfish43

[Undertow 31]

I would also like to hear people's opinions between the nikon 16mm and the sigma 15mm, especially related to sharpness. I just bought a nikon 16mm and while I love it and its super sharp and pops like the 10.5mm, I've already buggered a couple potentially spectacular shots because its lack of super close focus. I know the sigma has much closer focus, but how is the sharpness and how close does it really focus with a common 8" dome?? Cheers,

 

Chris

[ornate_wrasse 0]

Larry,

 

Those images are very nice. Thanks for sharing examples of both the 10.5 and the Sigma 15.

 

You must have been very close to that nurse shark. In the shots I've taken with my 10.5 topside, it never ceases to amaze me just how close I am to what I'm shooting with that amazing lens.

 

Ellen

[RogerC 4]

I'm not a nikon shooter and can't speak to the technical quality of those lenses, but I think you have the range pretty well covered for cozumel or most sites.

 

The south end of cozumel (palancar, punta sur, columbia) have some really dramatic walls and pinnacles and towering castle-like reef structure, but not a lot of fish. Good place for wide angle landscapes. I'd bet all of those 3 shots from Larry are from the south end.

 

The shallower end of palancar has a lot of turtles. The shallower second dives have more fish life, especially on the simpler, less dramatic sponge reefs that get dove less often. The lens for those reefs is probably the 60 or whatever you like for a fish portrait lens. Maybe the 105, too. I would not say the gap between the 10.5 and the 60 is so great. In classic terms what you are missing is something like the nikonos 28mm lens, a "shark" lens, something for big shy subjects, and there isn't a lot of that in cozumel. Turtles will get 5 feet from you, if you are calm and lucky, eagle rays and blacktips will say far away from you. Most of the smaller fish are a bit shy and the 60 will be good.

 

If you have a good house reef, definitely the 105, you can have two hour dives on your own poking around in the eel grass.

 

I'm not sure I'd add the 16mm prime lens, I don't think it would get you much over the 10.5. I would if it were stellar, technically, or if you prefer the rectilinear lens over the fisheye (I do) but this is cozumel (1 wreck), not truk (all wrecks) and the fisheye distortion won't matter much.

 

I'd probably add the zoom over the prime, just for the flexibility, but nothing about cozumel makes that especially true, it's just a general comment about zooms over primes.

 

take a look at Jim Lyle's trip reports below and you'll get a good idea of the available subjects. Jim has been there a lot, he's quiet in the water, he knows behavior, he gets quite close to stuff. For years he shot a 5050 with macro lenses and a wide lens, on his last trip he shot his new oly E330 and mostly shot the 14-54mm oly lens (28mm-108mm equiv), his 105mm macro (210mm equiv) and some 7-14mm (14-28mm equiv)

 

http://chemistry.csudh.edu/faculty/jim/Jim'sWeb_Page.htm

Edited July 5, 2007 by RogerC

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Both the Sigma 15mm and the Nikon 16mm are superb prime lenses. They are both very similar optically. Since they are fisheye lenses, prime lenses both at f2.8, I don't think there is going to be any perceptible difference in sharpness. This isn't like judging between 2 zoom lenses. The fisheye is a very simple optical design. You will most likely be using it at hyperfocal distance so the DOF will be so huge that everything will be in sharp focus on either lens.

 

The advantage of the Sigma is closer focusing and cost. The advantage of the Nikon is resale value.

 

I own the Sigma and have shot it in Cozumel and it was excellent. If you are happy with the Nikon I say keep it!

 

You are much better off with this one than any of the WA zooms. You can zoom with your fins which is infinitely simpler anyway and be guaranteed of corner to corner sharpness. Also the wider max aperture is a huge boon to focusing. It also makes using filters easier. They both accept rear filters which make them cheaper to use with Magic Filters.