Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am contemplating housing an SLR (D7000)and want to get peoples thoughts on what lense to purchase.

 

I read nothing but good reviews/feedback about the Tokina 10-17 lense and am thinking about getting this, but may get another as well.

 

I am off to the Red Sea in June hopefully to see the Oceanics again and want to get some good pictures of them, so a lense to help here is a must in my eyes at the moment, what do people suggest.

 

Also is the kit lense any good underwater?

 

Many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either 60mm (the old or the new) are brilliant underwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Andrew just said... the 60mm is a must have for Nikon DX I think. Next up I would say Tokina 10-17 which is also wonderful, then 105mm VR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nudibranchs, small to medium fish, cuttlefish, octopus, seahorses, corals, sea stars, crabs, shrimp...

 

Basically anything from 15mm to 150mm in length, and even larger in clear water.

Edited by ATJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are limited to 2 lenses and want to shoot Oceanics, as your post implies, then you will find the 60 too long for them. The Tokina will be of use at the 17mm end (depending on how comfortable you are close up to them). Generally I find mid range zooms such as the 17-55 or the 17-35 used on DX format, are good for mid sized sharks. If your kit lens is an 18-55, this may well be a good option, although you may need a close up lens depending on the size of your dome (I've never used the 18-55 underwater but other wetpixellers might have). Wide rectilinear zooms such as the 12-24 will also be of great use (moreso than the Tokina when it comes to shooting Oceanics)

 

Hope this helps

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also shooting the D7000

 

My advice would be to get the following setups and shoot one or the other for the dive, you will get better images if you just concentrate on one discipline for the duration instead of trying to compromise and shoot everything you see with a zoom lens. There is always going to be another dive to get that shot.

 

- The Nikkor 60mm Marco for grubby water and fish portraits.

- The Nikoor 105mm Macro for clear water and standing off from your subject, add the Canon 250D diopter for the really small stuff and to lessen your working distance to the subject.

- Tokina 10-17 fisheye for the wide stuff + a 1.4 tele-convertor and mini dome for CFWA if that takes your fancy

 

Some shots from our latest trip to Raja Ampat with the above lens's

http://www.uwphotog.com/p412076511

Edited by Chriso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ridiculously cheap Nikon 18-55 works very well underwater if you add a +4 diopter and your housing manufacturer makes a suitable dome port. The optics are excellent and it is incredibly flexible (enables me to take everything from almost macro to moderately wide angle). It has become my favourite general purpose lens for clear tropical waters. I love my Tokina 10-17mm but you need to get very close if you want to take decent shark shots.

Edited by john70490

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the replies, lots of things to think about.

 

Oceanics are my main focus for the next trip, let's just hope they appear! I am also hoping to see the grey reefs as well, but I don't think I will get close enough to get any good pictures of these.

 

With regards to the suggested lenses for the Oceanics (12-24mm, 18-35mm) do they get housed in the dome like the Tokina?

 

I only want to take 2 lenses really due to limits (money, weight) and don't want to put all my eggs in one basket, I am thinking the Tokina is a given due to the options of the wide angle opportunities, it's what decision on the second lense???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

You can always use a photographers jacket which normally have loads of pockets which is what I use & many

Others I dive with do the same. As far us lens go I use my 105 Nikon micro more than my 60mm. I also use

10/17fe & 12/24 both these lens are great for shooting big stuff just as long as you have the correct dome &

The lens is in the correct position for the curvature of the port, I know people talk about sharpness around the

Edges with WA lens, but I use a wide port with a 35mm extender with a 4x diopter & get great results.

Regards,

Andy :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ridiculously cheap Nikon 18-55 works very well underwater if you add a +4 diopter and your housing manufacturer makes a suitable dome port.

 

I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

 

Tim

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot on my D7000 in a Hugyfot housing:

 

 

- Tokina 12-24mm

I like this lens as it is a rectilinear lens and give almost no distortion even at 12 mm above and under water,

but she need the right dome to get rid of soft corners (Ikelite Tokina 12-24mm port for example).

 

- Tokina 100 mm macro

(replaced my Nikon 105mm Micro NON VR with fungus problems)

 

I would like to play around with the

SIGMA 15mm diagonal fisheye http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/15mm-f28-ex...l-fisheye-sigma

SIGMA 10mm fisheye http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/10mm-f28-ex...m-fisheye-sigma

 

I think that both lenses are very promising, but it may be difficult to find the right dome for them as they are not widely used in UW Photography.

 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

 

Tim

 

:lol:

 

I agree with Tim.The Sigma equivalent; the 17-70 is the least used of my glass. I wouldn't be without it for a topside walk around lens but underwater it quickly loses its appeal... If I am going to shoot fish portraits, which is what I had intended it for, I now prefer to mount my 60mm or even 100mm behind a flat port and be able to tackle macro subjects too. Maybe two Tims dining on corvids tonight?

 

HTH, Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised, because that's a lousy range of focal lengths for underwater photography: it may work for sharks and divers, but they're going to be difficult to light. I'd be surprised if it works at all for small stuff. Can you post some images? If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow...

I find my 18-55mm lens to be extremely useful around Sydney where the viz is frequently poor but there is a range of subject sizes. The water is generally not clear enough to go much longer than 55mm except for very small subjects (where the 60mm macro does a better job). Going much wider than 18mm often results is lighting the particulate matter at the edges - at least that's what I've found with the few times I've used my 10-17mm around Sydney.

 

I love using my 60mm but am often frustrated by finding larger subjects - e.g. giant cuttlefish, Port Jackson and wobbegong sharks. With the 18-55mm I can still shoot them and most small subjects.

 

Here are some examples of shots taken with the 18-55mm with a +5 diopter in a 6" dome port.

 

O_typus_Lighthouse07-4-2.jpg

 

A_clarkii_Gotham1101.jpg

 

G_prasinus_Steps1101.jpg

 

Hippocampus_Leap1101-2.jpg

 

S_mestus_Leap1101.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very impressive photos Andrew! Love the pregnant seahorse.

 

This makes me wonder how the excellent Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would perform underwater.

 

John

Edited by johnspierce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, I am loving the long nose hawk! I am still yet to find one of them!

 

From what I can gather now it's looking like 3 lenses, the Tokina, the 60mm macro lense and another if I can afford it/fit it in mt luggage.

 

I notice that the Tokina and 60mm macro have specific ports, is this possible with these other general lenses? I am looking at nauticam ports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go with the Tokina, the Tokina and 1.4x teleconverter and the 60mm macro to begin (and then add a 105mm macro later).

 

I personally use the Zen 100mm minidome for 95% of wide angle now with the Tokina alone and the Tokina plus teleconverter. I had a spell of using the Sigma 17-70 with a large dome but this has mostly been superseded by the Tokina and teleconverter.

 

I'm not sure if you are upgrading from a compact and are still hoping for the wet lens flexibility that the compact can offer but I've found that quite quickly you begin to change the way you think about photography and really get a wide angle or a macro head on you when you go into the water. The you start really focusing on opportunities that the lens you have can give you.

 

All the WA shots in these series are with the Tok and tele

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersal...57628538019053/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersal...57627275123036/

 

So you can get dramatic frame fillers

6745057979_08167fdd23_z.jpg

 

Great for Close FOcus Wide angle

5973350502_00e0a94f47_z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex

 

Many thanks for this, adds another option that is possible and probably a better option than buying another lense.

 

Is there a nauticam dome that can do both with and without the converter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew, I am loving the long nose hawk! I am still yet to find one of them!

Up until last year, I had only seen them on a bommie at Ribbon Reef #10 on the GBR. I was in Borneo last year and they appear to be very common around Sipidan Island. I would have easily seen 100 on one drift dive. Each large sea fan had 2-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not as fortunate enough to have visited those places yet, but they are in the red sea which I have dived quite a few times, but yet to find one. I will be looking again in June this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking at the 60mm macro lense and notice that there are 2, can anyone explain the difference between the 2? Is the more expensive really worth the extra cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One 60 mm has ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to overcome chromatic aberration and is a tad sharper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...