Jump to content
nopro

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR II AFS DX

Recommended Posts

I 'm looking for the right underwater lens to put on a D300 in an Ikelite housing. I carried 3 ports and lenses for my old Canon. Now I'm having problems figuring out how to get all the Nikon stuff in my Pelican case. I thought I would try to narrow it down to two lenses and ports. I have a 16-85 I just got to use topside and wondered if anyone has used it under water. If it works should I try to carry it and a 60 mm macro or would you suggest two better choices?

Edited by nopro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I 'm looking for the right underwater lens to put on a D300 in an Ikelite housing. I carried 3 ports and lenses for my old Canon. Now I'm having problems figuring out how to get all the Nikon stuff in my Pelican case. I thought I would try to narrow it down to two lenses and ports. I have a 16-85 I just got to use topside and wondered if anyone has used it under water. If it works should I try to carry it and a 60 mm macro or would you suggest two better choices?

 

Hi nopro,

 

You might want to help us out here with a bit of editing... :huh:

Your title says 16-68 and Nikon don't make one. I think that you mean the new 16-65mm?

You then say that you have a 16-85, which is a very good, older film lens. Did you mean

that you bought the new 16-65mm lens or that you have the 16-85mm lens and was inquiring about

the new 16-65mm's ability underwater... :unsure::wacko:

In any case, the 16-85mm focuses right down onto the port and gives you 1:2 magnification which is great.

The newer 16-65mm doesn't focus down very well and will need a diopter, which is not so good.

You could get this lens to work underwater if you have to, but I don't think that it will be a very 'workable' situation... :(

For the 'one-stop shop', most people seem to go for the Sigma 17-70 macro with the new HSM AF,

which I am told is REALLY good. Some say that it is the "duck's guts". Anyway, I haven't tried it, but it will

work well with your D300. You will have to ask the forum about suitable ports for Ike systems, although it

will have to be a dome port...

HTH,

 

Bruce...

 

Phew...I think that I might need that bottle of Granma's "Little Helpers"... :)

Edited by bruceterrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the 'one-stop shop', most people seem to go for the Sigma 17-70 macro with the new HSM AF,

which I am told is REALLY good. Some say that it is the "duck's guts". Anyway, I haven't tried it, but it will

work well with your D300. You will have to ask the forum about suitable ports for Ike systems, although it

will have to be a dome port...

Yeah, the 17-70 is a good don't know what I'll find lens, as it may go from a moderate wide angle to a moderate macro. The right port for it is a 8" port with the .24 port. But this port is really better for wide angle than for macro.

 

If you want to use it to save some lenses on a trip, you may want to bring the dome port and the 60mm port for macro (or a macro modular setup). Using a diopter (+2) is always a good idea on this lens, as it improves sharpness on the corners in wide angle and shortens focusing distance in macro (although it makes it more difficult for portraits if you are not using the dome, as the dipoter limits maximun focusing distance).

 

BTW, does someone know how much does a +2 dipoter limit maximun focusing distance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LyN,

 

Just curious as to how you can recommend using a +2 diopter

with the 17-70mm Sigma lens and then end the post with a

question to the forum as to what your recommended +2 diopter

actually does to the lens in the field... :(:wacko:

 

Just curious, that's all... :unsure:

 

Bruce...

Edited by bruceterrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi nopro,

 

You might want to help us out here with a bit of editing... huh.gif

Your title says 16-68 and Nikon don't make one. I think that you mean the new 16-65mm?

You then say that you have a 16-85, which is a very good, older film lens. Did you mean

that you bought the new 16-65mm lens or that you have the 16-85mm lens and was inquiring about

the new 16-65mm's ability underwater... unsure.gif blink.gif

In any case, the 16-85mm focuses right down onto the port and gives you 1:2 magnification which is great.

The newer 16-65mm doesn't focus down very well and will need a diopter, which is not so good.

You could get this lens to work underwater if you have to, but I don't think that it will be a very 'workable' situation... blink.gif

For the 'one-stop shop', most people seem to go for the Sigma 17-70 macro with the new HSM AF,

which I am told is REALLY good. Some say that it is the "duck's guts". Anyway, I haven't tried it, but it will

work well with your D300. You will have to ask the forum about suitable ports for Ike systems, although it

will have to be a dome port...

HTH,

 

Bruce...

 

 

Er Bruce - you might want to help us out with a bit of editing here :glare: - the 16-85 is brand spanking new VR lens and the review is here :-

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--...kor_1685_3556vr

 

Paul C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err Paul C,

 

I thought that I specifically mentioned that I was talking about the older film lens which focuses down to 13" and has the magnification of 1:2. I mentioned that in my post.

If you had of read my post, I specifically asked 'nopro' as to which lens he was talking about so that we could help him with his inquiries, because he has not given enough information as to which lens he is referring to. As you have so correctly pointed out, there is also a newer version of this lens, but it neither has a close focus or a good magnification ratio, both of which I specifically mentioned in my post.

So before you start trying to hyjack threads and belittleing people with poorly attempted sarcasm, I would kindly ask you to take a leaf out of your own book and research the subject before opening your mouth...

 

IMHO...

 

Bruce...

 

BTW, do you have anything constructive to add to "nopro's" inquiries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi LyN,

 

Just curious as to how you can recommend using a +2 diopter

with the 17-70mm Sigma lens and then end the post with a

question to the forum as to what your recommended +2 diopter

actually does to the lens in the field... :):(

 

Just curious, that's all... :wacko:

 

Bruce...

Hi Bruce... mmmmm... well, it's not so strange. I have used the Sigma with the diopter as wide angle, and my impression is that is enhances corner sharpness. With the dome, maximum focus distance is not an issue, as the virtual image gets close to the dome.

 

However, the Sigma in macro reaches a magnification of 1:2,3, which can go further with the diopter behind a flat port. Up to here, no doubt, I have checked this.

 

However, I do not know how much this limits its hability to focus at a greater distance behind this flat port. I know it won't focus at infinity, but I suppose there's some optical theory behind which I don't master, so I wonder if anyone knows what the maximum focusing distance would be when using the dipoter, to evaluate this combo as a portrait lens.

 

I guess now it's more clear, isn't it? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Seems as if I erroneously got my 65's mixed up with my 68's and 85's... :wacko:

Sorry if I offended the collective... :blush:

 

I'm pulling me head in and sitting on the fence... :(

 

Hooroo,

Bruce... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the typo in the title. I just got the new Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II AFS DX and wondered if anyone has had the chance to try it. I think it might be a good choice with a dedicate Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AFS Micro-Nikkor for times I know I want to shoot macro.

Edited by nopro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nopro,

 

The 16-85 has only been released in Europe for a few months - to be honest I have not seen any pictures from it in the water. Looks like an interesting land lens though - I have nearly been tempted myself.

 

At one time I had the 17-70 in the water and was not inspired by it - the 17mm end was not wide enough and it needed a diopter which I forgot to screw on until I was in the water. Though obviously some get on well with it judging by their results.

 

Paul C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the 16-85mm behind a 6" dome port today. Looks find on land when it's zoomed in. When I zoom all the way out I see lots of the dome shade. The lens travel between 16mm and 85mm is about 1.7 inches (4.3 cm). It might work fine with an 8'' dome but it's not what I was hoping for. I don't plan to put it in the water. I think I'll stick with the Nikon 12-24mm and 60mm macro for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it works should I try to carry it and a 60 mm macro or would you suggest two better choices?

 

I agree that the best combination is the 60mm and 12-24mm as you suggest. The mid-range zooms just don't get wide enough to allow you to get close enough in most cases. The midrange zooms might make a fine shark lens, but thats a specialized case. If you want to maximize your capability with only 2 lenses go with a wide angle and a macro. The 60 is the most versitile. Then the 12-24mm. The Sigma 15mm FE would be another good alternative if you have it.

 

Some other good news is that with the 60mm AFS /12-24mm combo on Ikelite you can eliminate parts by squeezing both of them in the same modular port extension. With the modular flat port and the 8" dome, the same extension will work for both the 60mm with the flat port (if its the new AFS version) and the 12-24mm and the dome. The older 60mm extends farther out so it won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When going the 12-24 route on a Nikkon camera, do people favor the Nikkor lens? It seems so freaking expensive. And what is the practical difference between shooting that lens by Nikkor vs Tokina?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Now I'm having problems figuring out how to get all the Nikon stuff in my Pelican case.

 

Clearly we're attacking this problem entirely the wrong way. Get a bigger case. :huh:

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of us use the Nikon lens. I have it. It gets top marks from the reviewers.

 

But I bought mine when it was the only game in town. Now there are at least three good alternatives that you should look at:

 

The Tokina 12-24mm Is 90% as good as the Nikon for half the cost. Many use this one.

The Tokina 10-17mm is excellent behind a dome, very wide and flexible. Its about $500 Its a fisheye though. Most of the time you won't notice underwater but some don't like it above water. This is a cult favorite UW.

The Tokina 11-16 2.8 gets stellar reviews. This ought to be the best option and price is again 1/2 the Nikon price. Less range but better optics and more aperture options. But I haven't heard any results from underwater yet. Ryan at Reef Photo has one and tested it but didn't give any results. Maybe he's having problems with the dome combo? This is a very new lens so not very many people if any will know difinitively what the correct dome configuration will be. Ginea pig factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...