lenses for Raja Ampat

[stever 0]

leaving next week and just checking itenerary vs lenses

 

20D and planning to take Tokina 11-16, 50 1.4, and 100M. planning to leave behind 60M and 17-85. also taking 5D2 and 24-105 and 100-400 for topside.

 

concerned that the variety of life/situations on some dives might justify the 17-85.

 

planning to use 11-16 for Mantas at Mansuar - is this correct?

 

thanks

[Backscatter 7]

Stever,

 

If you can swing picking up the Tokina 10-17, that would be best. The 180 degree coverage works extremely well for the mantas - especially getting multiples in the frame - and yet you can still zoom in for closer shots. Also, the visibility in Raja Ampat can be variable. It helps to get as close as possible to the reef and other subjects. I was there in 2006 and had the 10.5 and 16mm fisheye lenses for Nikon on the D2x; my best wide material was all shot with the 10.5mm. The Tokina fisheye will also be useful at the wide end for shooting splits - opportunities for them are abundant in Raja Ampat.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Best regards,

 

Sterling

Edited September 17, 2009 by Backscatter

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I have always enjoyed a mid-range zoom in Rogers Armpit. Ideal for groups of reef fish (e.g. ribbon sweetlips) and larger individual fish, so I'd think about taking the 17-85mm instead of the 50mm.

 

Alex

[Natalie_S 1]

Is it worth getting the 10-17 if I already have the 10.5 and 12-24? I'm heading to RA myself next month and wondering whether it would be useful as an additional lens (or can it replace those two?). I use my 10.5 on all of my dives here at home (wreck dives), but I'm wondering whether the zoom would make the 10-17 more useful for my upcoming trip. If any of you have both the 10.5 and the 10-17, how does the quality compare between those two lenses?

 

Sorry for the hijack...

Edited September 17, 2009 by Natalie_S

[NWDiver 42]

On our trip to Raja I went with "the go big or go home" strategy. Took the Tokina 10-17mm, Nikon 105mm VR, 1.4 teleconverter, Macromate Doubler and must admit took the Sigma 17-70mm. In the end I shot the 10-17mm 50% of the time, the 105mm 40% and the 17-70mm 10%. Reality is in Raja you can always find stuff to fit the lens you have. Only minor regret would have been the 60mm on night dives. Gallery http://www.aquabluedreams.com/staticpages/pid/G/60

[alanchungsf 0]

On our trip to Raja I went with "the go big or go home" strategy. Took the Tokina 10-17mm, Nikon 105mm VR, 1.4 teleconverter, Macromate Doubler and must admit took the Sigma 17-70mm. In the end I shot the 10-17mm 50% of the time, the 105mm 40% and the 17-70mm 10%. Reality is in Raja you can always find stuff to fit the lens you have. Only minor regret would have been the 60mm on night dives. Gallery http://www.aquabluedreams.com/staticpages/pid/G/60

 

I agree. Just got back from Raja Ampat last week. I used my Tokina 10-17mm, and Nikon 105mm VR about 50/50. I did use my Nikon 12-24 on 2 dives out of 34, but mostly I preferred the 10-17. I also missed my 60mm a little, it died after 1 dive. The AFS motor gave out, I think. It was sent to Nikon service and I'm waiting to get it back. But having only the 105mm forced me to learn how to use it, since it is a new addition to my kit. One less decision to make on the macro dives. I was pretty happy with the results I got from the 105mm.

 

Now what I cannot imagine is the 105 with a teleconverter and the Macromate. I've hard enough time finding the subject with just the 105mm in current. I guess I've more to learn.

 

Have fun!

 

Cheers,

alan

 

PS. Great gallery! Really enjoyed seeing your shots.

Edited September 18, 2009 by alanchungsf

[MikeO 5]

I've gone there several times with just a Tokina 12-24 and the 100 (and an external diopter). I traded the 12-24 in for a 10-17 and will take that next time. May also take the 17-70 along but I'll have to think about it.

[flipken 0]

I went to Komodo last year. The Backscatter crew talked me into getting the Tokina 10-17 for that trip. I used this lens instead of my 12-24. The Tokina10-17 was definitely a better choice . Great for wide-angle and split shots.

Philip

[stever 0]

Thanks Alex, the 17-85 was my most used lens, to some good effect.

 

- had a serious problem with the 11-16 in that the 26mm eff seemed to exceed or be at safety zone to get fish in front of the fantastic coral - about 35mm eff worked much better (i'll use the Canon 10-22 in the future even though i like the quality of the Tamron). Perhaps this is a problem with my technique, but i also think the 8 inch dome increases the approach distance to many fish by at least a foot.

 

- we dived a number of new sites where we didn't know what to expect and the 17-85 was an excellent compromise - and there were schooling fish.

 

- used the 17-85 with the macro port for some muck diving and was able to get some larger critters as well as (fairly) small. The faster autofocus of the 17-85 vs the 100 macro was helpful - found 2 pair of cooperative pygmy cuttlefish on the next to last dive and spent some time with them - some good images but couldn't get the mating or feeding tentacle images

 

Also my first trip with fully funtiioning H&W ETTL and two flashes -- What a difference!

[philsokol 1]

So stever, do we get to see some pictures?