Jump to content
danielstassen

Is it really worth to use a diopter +4 with a 60mm lens ?

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I bought a diopter +4 and am planning using it on my next trip to Indonesia on my 60mm lens.

 

For what I have read, it seems that the working distance tends to be too reduced, hence making it impossible to get full frame macro.

 

What do you think? :P

 

Have you tried it before with "success" ? :guiness:

 

If you have a few pictures of successful or unsuccessful stories, I will be delighted to see them... ;)

 

Cheers

 

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Daniel,

 

if you have the 60mm (maybe the Nikkor Micro Lens) you can focus down to 21cm... 21cm from the sensor's plane (near the back of your camera).

 

Assuming you have the right Port for your 60mm lens you can measure the distance from the sensor's plane to the glass of your Port. If you do this you'll notice your nearest focus distance enables you to focus a subject just touching the glass of your Port.

 

I think you don't need a +4 dipoter on your 60mm lens.

Edited by Carlos Morais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought. Well I will need to start saving for a 105mm lens.

 

Oh god! more spending...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I thought. Well I will need to start saving for a 105mm lens.

 

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is a very good lens. No doubt about that!

 

I've one 60mm and a 105mm. I use the 105mm most of the times.

 

You can try a less expensive way: one 2x teleconverter. I own one of this:

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/kenko/slrc-01.html

 

it's about 200$ investment as you can see here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3710...tml/ul/P/umse/0

 

and you can give it a try with the 60mm. Later on you can buy the 105mm (after seeling some photos ;-) ) and you can still use the 2x with the 105mm and go to Supermacro...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a cheaper solution, but I read an article in which they say that you need to focus manually when using a teleconverter with a small aperture? If it is the case I will need to check with Ikelite if they offer a port to focus manually.

 

Cheers

 

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a cheaper solution, but I read an article in which they say that you need to focus manually when using a teleconverter with a small aperture? If it is the case I will need to check with Ikelite if they offer a port to focus manually.

 

Cheers

 

Daniel

 

It's not true. I use AutoFocus with my 60 and 105 attached to the Kenko Pro 300 2x. No problem with Autofocus. It's not easy with moving subjects but you'll get used to it with experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently used my 60mm lens with a +4 diopter in a dome port. I was able to get to 1:1. I couldn't get to 1:1 without the +4 diopter. There was still some distance from the front of the dome port to the subject - just enough to get some light from the strobes.

 

Here's a shot I took of a ruler showing I can get 1:1

Macro60mmDome%204UW.jpg

 

If I was using the lens in the flat port, I wouldn't use the diopter, but it works fine with the dome port. The dome port is better than the flat port when the water is not particularly clear as I can get a lot closer for the same amount of magnification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mean to hijack, but can someone point me towards or explain to me a few things. Background: I have gone from shooting with an S50 w/OEM to a G9 w/Ike & strobes and now I am preparing to go DSLR (waiting for D400 or D700x I think). I have read a good bit on ports and systems, etc but I am still somewhat confused as to diopters.... and when you NEED them or when they will help.

 

Ok, so I plan to use a Tokina 10-17 for wide, and a Nikon 60mm or 105mm for macro. I get a dome port for the WA, and a Macro port for (duh) macro. Except I would just buy the macro setup first as this is my dominant interest - and I can still take "normal" photos with the 60mm lens on.

 

So when do I need diopters? And what else is my concern? I am somewhat confused with extensions as well... but I guess this is just a factor of the housing manufactures make one (or a few) ports and then I need to add the appropriate extension to get the glass (plastic) at the right distance from the end of the lens, right? So there is one combination of port/lens/extension that is correct, right?

 

And to complicate my question... if I were willing to spend on the 105 macro would that be better that getting the 60mm. People that have both seem to use the 105 more. More working distance sounds great to me. What are the drawbacks (other than cost and weight). Note I fully expect the DSLR market to tend to FF sensors and I will probably get one for my next DSLR Hence D700x)... but the cropped sensor will be supported and for UW I am fine cropping/mag'ing. I do have the older 105 AF/D but I have been drooling over the new one.

 

Thanks!!!

Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently used my 60mm lens with a +4 diopter in a dome port. I was able to get to 1:1. I couldn't get to 1:1 without the +4 diopter. There was still some distance from the front of the dome port to the subject - just enough to get some light from the strobes.

(...)

 

Hello ATJ,

 

I use the FlatPort with my Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 Micro and I can get 1:1 without the need of any diopter... I have not tried the 60mm with the Dome Port. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(...)

So when do I need diopters?

(...)

Jeremy

 

Hello Jeremy,

 

I have used a +2 diopter only once: I've tried my Kit Lens (the Nikkor zoom 28-70) with my Subal 8'' Dome.

In this situation you have to use a +diopter because the zoom lens has not the minium focus distance necessary to use it behind the Dome, i.e., you need the +diopter so the zoom lens "can see" things closer (just like the humans need the +diopters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use the FlatPort with my Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 Micro and I can get 1:1 without the need of any diopter... I have not tried the 60mm with the Dome Port. ;)

I concur. You do not need a diopter to get to 1:1 in a flat port. You do need one to get to 1:1 in a dome port.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't mean to hijack, but can someone point me towards or explain to me a few things. Background: I have gone from shooting with an S50 w/OEM to a G9 w/Ike & strobes and now I am preparing to go DSLR (waiting for D400 or D700x I think). I have read a good bit on ports and systems, etc but I am still somewhat confused as to diopters.... and when you NEED them or when they will help.

 

Ok, so I plan to use a Tokina 10-17 for wide, and a Nikon 60mm or 105mm for macro. I get a dome port for the WA, and a Macro port for (duh) macro. Except I would just buy the macro setup first as this is my dominant interest - and I can still take "normal" photos with the 60mm lens on.

 

So when do I need diopters? And what else is my concern? I am somewhat confused with extensions as well... but I guess this is just a factor of the housing manufactures make one (or a few) ports and then I need to add the appropriate extension to get the glass (plastic) at the right distance from the end of the lens, right? So there is one combination of port/lens/extension that is correct, right?

 

Diopter bascially trick the camera to focus certain distance behind the dome port and is often necessary for wide angle. Instead of focus on the subject of where it is, it changes the focus location so to speak virtually to actually allow it to focus. If the primary WA is Tokina 10-17, there is no need to add diopter and no place to screw on the diopter anyway for the fisheye lense.

 

And to complicate my question... if I were willing to spend on the 105 macro would that be better that getting the 60mm. People that have both seem to use the 105 more. More working distance sounds great to me. What are the drawbacks (other than cost and weight). Note I fully expect the DSLR market to tend to FF sensors and I will probably get one for my next DSLR Hence D700x)... but the cropped sensor will be supported and for UW I am fine cropping/mag'ing. I do have the older 105 AF/D but I have been drooling over the new one.

 

Thanks!!!

Jeremy

 

60mm and 105mm are often use in different situation. Really depends on where you dive. 60mm let you get closer to the subject which is necessary for low vis diving, basically the port almost touch the subject, so even in very cloudy water, you can still photo the object. With 105 and a woody diopter, you still need several inches (may be 4~6) of clearance. Also the field are much narrow then 60mm. So it's much harder to 'see' and shoot. More working distance sounds good for fish protriat but it's also harder to follow. Diving in Monterey California, I found myself using 60mm 80% and 20% on the 105. But when I am in warm water like Bali, it will be the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I plan to use a Tokina 10-17 for wide, and a Nikon 60mm or 105mm for macro. I get a dome port for the WA, and a Macro port for (duh) macro. Except I would just buy the macro setup first as this is my dominant interest - and I can still take "normal" photos with the 60mm lens on.

The angle of view of a 60mm lens is much narrower than a 10-17mm (even when the 10-17mm is at 17mm). This means to get the same coverage of a subject with the 60mm lens, you'd have to move further away. That works pretty well above water, but underwater you need to get as close to the subject as possible to minimise loss of light and clarity due to the water itself. Ideally, you want to stay within a couple of metres of the subject. This means you are not going to be able to take the same sorts of shots with a 60mm lens versus a 10-17mm lens and if you try, quality will suffer.

 

So when do I need diopters?

You MAY need them when using a lens in a dome port. You know how when you are underwater with your mask on, everything looks bigger. This is due to the refraction of light as it passes from the water through the glass of your mask into the air inside the mask. The mask is basically a flat port and as the light comes in at an angle you will get refraction. The same thing happens when you put a lens behind a flat port. The angle of view is narrowed and everything appears closer.

 

A dome port works by preventing the light from the subject coming in at an angle. i.e. each ray of light from the subject enters through the dome port at right angles to the front of the port. This means that when the lens is behind the dome port, there is no refraction and the angle of view of the lens is preserved. However, the lens doesn't focus on the subject. Instead, you get an apparent image created by the dome port which is a lot closer than the real subject. For example, for an subject that is a metre away, the apparent image may only be 30 centimetres away. The lens has to focus on this, and so needs to be able to focus closer than it normally does.

 

Any lens used behind a dome port needs to be able to focus close enough to focus on the apparent image. For lenses that already focus close, you may be fine and they will work as is behind the dome port. Macro lenses are fine. For other lenses, you need to add a diopter to allow them to focus close enough on the apparent image. A +4 diopter is usually recommended for this. Even if the lens can focus close enough without adding a diopter, you will lose magnification. From my experiments with Ikelite 6" dome ports, a +4 diopter is just right for "correcting" the effect of the dome port. For example, my 60mm lens is capable of 1:1 magnification. I would lose that when the lens is used behind a dome port without a diopter. If I add a +4 diopter, I get 1:1.

 

And what else is my concern? I am somewhat confused with extensions as well... but I guess this is just a factor of the housing manufactures make one (or a few) ports and then I need to add the appropriate extension to get the glass (plastic) at the right distance from the end of the lens, right? So there is one combination of port/lens/extension that is correct, right?

You need sufficient extension in the port to accommodate the lens at its longest. For example, if the front of the lens extends when focusing or zooming, you need sufficient length in the port to allow this.

 

And to complicate my question... if I were willing to spend on the 105 macro would that be better that getting the 60mm. People that have both seem to use the 105 more. More working distance sounds great to me. What are the drawbacks (other than cost and weight). Note I fully expect the DSLR market to tend to FF sensors and I will probably get one for my next DSLR Hence D700x)... but the cropped sensor will be supported and for UW I am fine cropping/mag'ing. I do have the older 105 AF/D but I have been drooling over the new one.

The question of 60mm vs 105mm is asked regularly and you'd be better off checking previous threads for the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrew! Thats just what I was looking for. So is there an advantage (disadvantage?) to using a Macro lens behind a dome? Adding a diopter is obviously another element which will affect cost/clarity/light/??? and thus seems bad. Adding a flat port of course adds cost if you need both (and have to lug both to the far reaches...).

 

To answer one question raised, I typically dive in clear warm waters where 6" of visibility is not a problem. And I shoot critters that dont want me to be 10cm away... sometimes. I would like to take pix of Octos and Nudies, (and obviously the more exotic critters of those sizes/personailities) and the occasional reefscape.

 

Also there are big ranges in dome sizes... 6" - 9+". I imagine the advantage of bigger dome is the light entry point is further from the lens so the virtual image is further from the lens and thus reduces the need (or power of) the diopter. I expect the higher power the diopter the worse (although I presume it is imperceptible anyway) the distortion.

 

There are also various flat ports by the same manufacturer... for example I am looking at a Sea & Sea housing. They list several flat ports but the one they say is for the Nikon 60mm is the Custom Flat port. Is this just because that is the size of flat port that accomodates that lens... I imagine so. And then presumably it is fat enough for the 105mm and I would just add extensions...

 

For the WA, they recommend their NX FishEye Dome Port, and then an extension ring... this dome says it is made specifically for WA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is there an advantage (disadvantage?) to using a Macro lens behind a dome?

Advantages:

* Wider angle of view. This means at the same distance from port to subject you can get more in. This will be useful for larger subjects. For the same subject area covered the distance from port to subject will be smaller, i.e. less water. All this means you have a wider range of possible subjects at the larger end of the scale.

* It may be possible to share the port with other lenses, such as zoom lenses so if space is a premium, you can reduce the number of ports. I can use the same dome port for my 60mm as for my 18-55mm zoom.

 

Disadvantages:

* As you get closer to 1:1, the distance from port to subject is greatly reduced which makes lighting more difficult. i.e. is there enough gap between the edge of the port and the subject to get the strobes in. Even if you can get the light in, it may all be coming from the side rather than the front of the subject

* Another medium through which light must pass - see below

 

Adding a diopter is obviously another element which will affect cost/clarity/light/??? and thus seems bad.

This is true, in theory. In my experience, however, the optical quality of the diopter is better than the dome port and has less impact that the affects of the water itself. For me, there is no obvious loss in quality but the advantages are valuable.

 

To answer one question raised, I typically dive in clear warm waters where 6" of visibility is not a problem. And I shoot critters that dont want me to be 10cm away... sometimes. I would like to take pix of Octos and Nudies, (and obviously the more exotic critters of those sizes/personailities) and the occasional reefscape.

Nudibranchs can be taken equally well with either the dome (and +4 diopter) or the flat port, unless they are very small, in which case the flat port will excel because of the greater distance to the subject. Here is an uncropped nudibranch photograph taken with the 60mm in a dome port with a +4 diopter:

 

C_amoenum_Shiprock08-13.jpg

 

Octopus photographs may be difficult with either lens because you need to move further away. I think for this, the dome port and +4 will work slightly better. Here's a shot (uncropped) from the same dive as the nudibranch above:

 

O_tetricus_Shiprock08-2.jpg

 

I can even take fish photographs with the dome port and +4 diopter:

 

C_truncatus_Shiprock08-4.jpg

 

Also there are big ranges in dome sizes... 6" - 9+". I imagine the advantage of bigger dome is the light entry point is further from the lens so the virtual image is further from the lens and thus reduces the need (or power of) the diopter. I expect the higher power the diopter the worse (although I presume it is imperceptible anyway) the distortion.

I don't have a huge experience with dome ports so I may not be the best person to answer. I believe larger dome ports are more important for wide angle lenses and I doubt you'd get much advantage, if any, putting a 60mm lens in a 8 or 9" dome port over a 6" one. Adding a diopter (even for wide angle lenses) is often recommended to REDUCE edge distortion and +4 is meant to be better than a +2. I believe a larger dome port results in less distortion but I don't think this has anything to do with the use of a diopter or not.

 

There are also various flat ports by the same manufacturer... for example I am looking at a Sea & Sea housing. They list several flat ports but the one they say is for the Nikon 60mm is the Custom Flat port. Is this just because that is the size of flat port that accomodates that lens... I imagine so. And then presumably it is fat enough for the 105mm and I would just add extensions...

You need a port that is wide enough and long enough to accommodate the lens. You don't want the flat port to be much longer than the lens at full extension as you may get vignetting.

 

For the WA, they recommend their NX FishEye Dome Port, and then an extension ring... this dome says it is made specifically for WA...

The dome port you use for wide angle depends on the length being used and I don't think you can recommend a "one port fits all".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are also various flat ports by the same manufacturer... for example I am looking at a Sea & Sea housing. They list several flat ports but the one they say is for the Nikon 60mm is the Custom Flat port. Is this just because that is the size of flat port that accomodates that lens... I imagine so. And then presumably it is fat enough for the 105mm and I would just add extensions...

 

I'm no expert but, as I understand it, the Sea & Sea custom flat port (#56231) and the standard flat port (#56101) both take the Nikkor 60mm and (with Extension Ring 40, #56111) the (old) 105mm. The standard flat port is about $200 cheaper than the custom flat port. I use the standard flat port. If I want to focus the 60mm lens manually, I add a focus gear. I should add that I'm still using film but I don't think that makes any difference in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...