Jump to content
philsokol

Lenses for Cocos and Galapagos

Recommended Posts

I am in the fortunate position to be doing both Cocos and the Galapagos this fall. I'm wondering if my Tokina 10-17 on my Canon 40D will be enough for wide angle pics. I have the Sigma 17-70 which I bought as an all-around topside lens. Should I get the extra gear to take that u/w as well? Any other recommended lenses for these locales? I will be bringing my 60mm for macro.

 

Any other recommendations/tips greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks,

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in the fortunate position to be doing both Cocos and the Galapagos this fall. I'm wondering if my Tokina 10-17 on my Canon 40D will be enough for wide angle pics. I have the Sigma 17-70 which I bought as an all-around topside lens. Should I get the extra gear to take that u/w as well? Any other recommended lenses for these locales? I will be bringing my 60mm for macro.

 

Any other recommendations/tips greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks,

 

Phil

I think you will find the 10-17 too wide sometimes for the hammerheads etc. With an opportunity like that to go to Cocos and Galapagos, I would definitely set your 17-70 up for UW use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been to Cocos twice now and 90% of the time I shot the 17-55mm nikon. If viz is good, schools big, and you feel you have some good shots in the "can" then the 10-17mm might give you some stellar results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. You confirmed my suspicions that the 10-17 might be too wide for a lot (most?) of the likely situations. I've got an email in to my local retailer about the additional gear I'll need. Of course I'll probably need another (no doubt reasonably priced) port, zoom gear, etc., etc. :)

 

Thanks again,

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the Tokina - AF ATX 11-16/2.8 PRO DX?

 

I am going to Malpelo in a few weeks and I had the same thought as you...that the Tokina fisheye would be too wide for that kind of wildlife. Not to mention the distortion that the fisheye would add. SO I bought the Tokina 11-16 for my Aquatica D300 system Had to also order the correct extension ring and zoom for that lens. See my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

Just another thought...

 

Depending on your budget, you might use this as an opportunity to start building your collection of top-quality prime lenses, rather than spend the money to house your other zoom lens. You'll certainly lose some flexibility and get less (quantity) shots per dive with primes, but you might end up with a few really great shots...

 

The Canon 24L f/1.4 is one possibility (I've really enjoyed that lens!), and the Canon 35L f/1.4 is another (I have less experience with it, but Eric raves about its tack sharpness as a "small shark" lens). On your 40D, I would think either of those would be excellent fish/shark lenses. You'd have to check to see what additional ports you might need to hold them. If you can use either of those particular lenses in your existing ports, you're welcome to borrow either one from me for a few dives when we're on the Galapagos trip together to try them with your rig... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you considered the Tokina - AF ATX 11-16/2.8 PRO DX?

 

I am going to Malpelo in a few weeks and I had the same thought as you...that the Tokina fisheye would be too wide for that kind of wildlife. Not to mention the distortion that the fisheye would add. SO I bought the Tokina 11-16 for my Aquatica D300 system Had to also order the correct extension ring and zoom for that lens. See my previous post.

Have fun in Malpelo. Please post your results with the 11-16 when you get back, it will be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys maybe a silly question. I noticed in the S&S charts the Canon EF16-35mm L works with the Fisheye dome and uses the same zoon ring as the Tokina 10-17. How would this work for a big animal/shark lens on a cropped sensor camera. I noticed Bruce's comment on the 24L and it got me thinking. I've seen a much of comments and threads on the lens for the full frame cameras but I don't remember anyone talking about it lately for the 40D. Anybody use it?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys maybe a silly question. I noticed in the S&S charts the Canon EF16-35mm L works with the Fisheye dome and uses the same zoon ring as the Tokina 10-17. How would this work for a big animal/shark lens on a cropped sensor camera. I noticed Bruce's comment on the 24L and it got me thinking. I've seen a much of comments and threads on the lens for the full frame cameras but I don't remember anyone talking about it lately for the 40D. Anybody use it?

Steve

My 17-55 F2.8 Nikon worked extremely well at Cocos. Anything less would have been too wide, unless you are using a rebreather. This is a supurb lens for Dx format cameras, above and below the water.

 

Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the Canon 10-22 on a 20D in my Subal housing on trips to Cocos and Galapagos. I got plenty of good stuff and had no cpmplaints. However, I was shooting a lot at the 22mm end of the zoom range, and I think a 16-35mm would likely be a sligtly better choice in many of the shooting situations. You're still going to need to be in fairly close range to light up big animals like hammerheads. Thus, I think anything longer than 35mm (on a crop sensor camera) would be problematic for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just returned from Malpelo. Some images here. Because I did not get my zoom or extension ring in time, I was stuck with my Tokina 10-17 and my 60mm and 105mm macros. I was pretty happy with the 10-17 for a few wide hammerhead shots etc., but I really wondered what the 11-16 would have done for some of those. Like the whale shark that was completely distorted by the fisheye.

 

I highly recommend bringing a 60mm and flat port. 105mm in surge and current was a crap shoot, I thought.

 

hammerhead-school2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Scott Kent, bigtime. The first shot of the whaleshark is very nice. I'm extremely jealous. I really like the wide angle work close to the reef too. I'm curious what strobe(s) you were using. I'm also noticed quite a bit of red showing up in the shadows of some of your images. Is that an artifact of the website, or processing, or my screen or my lack of sleep?

Thanks for including us in the trip. Looks like a great time :offtopic:

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious what strobe(s) you were using. I'm also noticed quite a bit of red showing up in the shadows of some of your images. Is that an artifact of the website, or processing, or my screen or my lack of sleep?

 

I use Inons as they are the only ones that I heard can go to 500 feet. As for all the red, that is what auto-levels with Photoshop will do when there is a lot of blue elsewhere, as is typical underwater. I am red-green color deficient so I don't notice it as odd on my screen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I am new to wetpixel and already thrilled by the amount of good advice to be found here.

 

I am in a similar situation to Phil: I am planning a trip to Galapagos next year and am already using a Tokina 10-17 on my 50D. Having read that this might not be enough for wideangle shots in Galapagos, I am wondering whether I should be taking my Canon 17-85 IS underwater (which some people here seem not to like for UW shots) or whether to upgrade to a Canon 17-55 IS, 16-35L II, 17-40L or something completely different. Is it worth spending the extra money and what will be the differences?

 

Thanks,

 

Dominik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys, I am new to wetpixel and already thrilled by the amount of good advice to be found here.

 

I am in a similar situation to Phil: I am planning a trip to Galapagos next year and am already using a Tokina 10-17 on my 50D. Having read that this might not be enough for wideangle shots in Galapagos, I am wondering whether I should be taking my Canon 17-85 IS underwater (which some people here seem not to like for UW shots) or whether to upgrade to a Canon 17-55 IS, 16-35L II, 17-40L or something completely different. Is it worth spending the extra money and what will be the differences?

 

Thanks,

 

Dominik

 

I just got back from Galapagos about a month ago - unfortunately my camera flooded on the very first dive (user error - as in crossthreaded extension ring - thank goodness for my DAN camera insurance) - I thought something along the lines of a Nikon 10 - 24 or 17 - 55 would be ideal for most of the pics - with somewhat limited visability the Galapagos sharks and hammerheads never quite got close enough to really take full advantage of the Tokina's wide angle range and the only thing you would really like to shoot with the Tokina 10 - 17 (if you are lucky) would be a whale shark - forget about macro - this is big animal stuff - and there is a lot of current and surge. For the northern islands of Wolf and Darwin with the strong currents carrying the big rig is going to be a struggle - I was wishing for my old Nikonos V and 15 mm lens - compact but great optics. I did settle for borrowing a friend's Canon G-9. I got some OK stuff but without the external flash and with the shutter lag the best I got was not great but "just OK" - plus the visability and debris in the water was a far cry from the clear waters of the Caribbean I have grown to know and love. You can check out what I came up with on my website (which is still under construction and will be updated in the next week or two) - http://oceandoctorshots.com/Galleries/Gallery%204/index.html - (sorry about some of the funky land pics but it is what it is).

Good luck.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the Galapagos two weeks prior to Andy and dove with my Subal housing with a 8 inch dome port using a 17-70 lens and dual stobes at Wolf. Took my housing down for one dive, got banged around on the rocks and almost lost my rig fighting hanging on in the current and ever changing surge. We both made it, but both suffered contusions. The remaining dives at Wolf and Darwin were without my rig. It was just simply too big to safely handle the strong currents and changing surges. You need two kevlar cover hands to hang onto the rock. The vis was 30 feet, but saw and swam with 8 whale sharks. A small video rig will work, but not a big DSLR.

 

Elmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was in the Galapagos two weeks prior to Andy and dove with my Subal housing with a 8 inch dome port using a 17-70 lens and dual stobes at Wolf. Took my housing down for one dive, got banged around on the rocks and almost lost my rig fighting hanging on in the current and ever changing surge. We both made it, but both suffered contusions. The remaining dives at Wolf and Darwin were without my rig. It was just simply too big to safely handle the strong currents and changing surges. You need two kevlar cover hands to hang onto the rock. The vis was 30 feet, but saw and swam with 8 whale sharks. A small video rig will work, but not a big DSLR.

 

Elmer

 

Need a helmet camera - perfect for keeping your hands free - or a prosthetic eye implant with computer lens hookup.

LOL.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got an email in to my local retailer about the additional gear I'll need. Of course I'll probably need another

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...