New D7000 but which lens?

[papamac58 7]

Hi all, I just got a Nikon D7000 and would like to know if there is a very good quality all purpose lens to get me by until I can aquire a Tokina 10-17 and a 60mm micro. I would like one that is good at both W/A and has macro capability. Thanks for any and all advice.

[KirkD 7]

You could compromise with the Sigma 17-70 macro. Its not terribly wide and dos not do true macro. I personally would decide if you want macro or wide angle. Then get either the Tokina 10-17 FE or the Nikon 60 macro.

 

Of. Ote, I do not and have not shot the Sigma 17-70 macro, but know people who do use it.

 

What housing do you have? Just want to make sure that the housing manufactorer has the zoom gear for the "all purpose" lens.

 

Kirk

[papamac58 7]

Thanks Kirk, I don't have a housing but would like to get the Nauticam or Aquatica and I will make sure there ports and gears for the lens I choose.

[KirkD 7]

I have an Aquatica housing and love it. Jean is on the forums here and he is very responsive via e-mail. Having said that, you really can't go wrong with either Aquatica or Nauticam. Now it is time to have some fun with your new camera.

 

Fyi, since the D800 came out, I've seen some housings for sale here on wetpixel. You maybe able to save some bucks on a used housing.

 

Kirk

[Alex_Tattersall 90]

+1 for the Sigma 17-70, although I’d go Tokina +1.4x Kenko teleconverter and a minidome any day.

[Deep6 7]

+1 for the Sigma 17-70, although I’d go Tokina +1.4x Kenko teleconverter and a minidome any day.

 

I have a DX system. For underwater, I think the Tok 10-17 w or w/o 1.4 in a mini dome (~4.33 ") is super. I don't use it much top side. I have the older Nikkor 60 & 105 macro lens, but perfer the 105 and use it in the M focus mode (I can switch to AF or M on the go underwater) . The 105 is a little too long on a DX underwater; you might consider the 85 macro if there is a port for it. I have the Siggy 17-70 "macro" and is OK for u/w (in flat port) and good for topside too. At 1:2 on DX ~= 1:1.33 life size. Not bad!

 

I found the 105 a little too short for shooting a tiny Fer-de-Lance at close range

 

Bob

 

P.S. The choice of 60 vs 105 might depend on water clarity.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Deep6

[papamac58 7]

Will the tokina with the tele converter give decent close ups (macro type) intil I can afford the Nikon 60mm micro and port? My kit came with the 18-200 lens, supposedly a very good lens and yes I know it's not for underwater but so far I am liking it. As far as macro or W/A and which will I want to shoot more it would probably be 50-50 as I usually decide the night before a dive or if we are on a dive vacation I talk to the dive master(s) the day before so I can be set before I get on the boat. I do really enjoy WACU though as it gives me a variety of options on any given dive. I have given the Ikelite some concideration because of cost but I just don't like the way they feel.

[Viz'art 24]

The Tokina and 1.4x teleconverter will give you real close focusing, that is for sure, but it should no be mistaken for macro, its not, but if I was caught between a rock and a hard place, I would likely go for the Tokina on the basis that you have a good range of field of view, an excellent close focusing capability and while this is not "true" macro per say, it can and will give you a punch in the face view of your subject.

 

you can add the fairly inexpensive Kenko 1.4x TC to widen the range of the lens and improve close up magnification (image being bigger at equal distance wit the TC converter)

 

Also IMO, the Tokina can be used in pretty much all type of environment, the macro lenses as well, but selecting the right focal length for the conditions can often make a big difference, things like water condition, subject matter, working distance, desired magnification and whether or not you want to add close up lenses down the road all are decision that have an impact on which lens you want to use.

 

I do have the Sigma 17-70mm, it is a good scouting and fish portrait lens, but honestly, it gets maybe one or two dives, at maximum on a dive trip, in most situation i either want to see wider or get bigger that it will let me. Don't get me wrong, it isn't going on the auction block anytime soon, I like the lens, it just would not be my first pick in the kind of predicament you are, beside you already have the 18-200mm for top side and while you can't use this 18-200mm underwater it still has a range that covers the 17-70mm and more, so it is kind of redundant in a way.

 

If budget is tight, then a more economical dome port might lighten the fiscal burden, we all love our 4" small dome port, but they are dedicated port designed for fisheye lenses only, a larger 6" or 8" will accommodate a much broader range of lenses, including fisheye lenses, so take this into consideration as well

[papamac58 7]

Thank you Jean, I really appreciate everyones input, this is helping a lot. I was also thinking about the use of a diopter holder for a semi or dome port. What are your thoughts on this approach?

[Viz'art 24]

A wet diopter (externally installed close up lens) has to be on a flat port, it will not mount on a dome port, you can use a regular close up lens inside a dome to improve close focusing performance, the size of the dome usually dictate the strenght of the diopter (Typically +4 with a 6'' port, +3 for an 8'') but in the case of a fisheye and some ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lenses with bulbous front end, there is no provision for threading any filter or accessories.

 

If you intend to eventually go with diopter , then I suggest you get a 105mm and get a +5 for starter, (the +10 will definitely bring out the cafeine you ingested in the last decade :-), IMO it is just too much of a chalenge to begin with) also the longer lens give better lens to subject working distance, which will be healthier for the reef and your friendly relation with the local divemaster, trust me.

 

Shorter lens such as the 60mm and 50mm have much less magnification when used with the same diopter, I would go so far as to say that getting a +5 for a 60mm is a lot of investment for little in return.

 

For ultra macro I like the 105mm & +5 as my personal setup, the +10 really needs that special subject that will lend itself to such a shallow depth of field.

[Stewart L. Sy 12]

I most definitely recommend saving up for the 10-17 and not use the 17-70. You will end up wishing for either wider or more magnification. I do echo what Jean recommends for super macro use. The +10 with a 105 is definitely a specialist lens...I have enough OOF shots from that combo (well 100 Macro & +10) to prove it!

 

Pretty much every cropped sensor housing we sell inevitably ends getting set up for the Tokina.

 

If you can swing it, getting a housing with optical bulkheads lets you use current strobes with either Manual or DS-TTL.

 

S.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Stewart L. Sy

[KirkD 7]

Would suggest the 60 macro lens over the 105 if you have no experience. I wouldn't suggest the 105 as your first macro lens (on a crop sensor camera) The 105 is a little harder to focus. But I still use it.

Kirk

[KirkD 7]

When I bought my firsttDSLR, I bought the Tokina 10-17 FE with 8" done port. Idid not regret it as I got to shoot one lens fir a period of time and got pretty good with it. I later added a 60mm macro and flat port.

 

Kirk

[Aussiebyron 57]

I shoot a Nikon D7000 housed in an Aquatica housing. I use the Tokina 10-17mm 95% of the time and the other 5% is the 60mm older Nikkor macro. I also have the Kenko 1.4x TC which I actually like using more so on the 60mm than on the Tokina. It gives the 60mm a little extra reach (turns the 60mm into a 84mm with 1.4x image size). My Sigma 17-70mm never gets used anymore. It was a lens when everytime I used it I would always say to myself wish I had either gone with the 60mm or the Tokina 10-17mm.

 

But it also depends on what your shooting mostly. If your shooting mostly macro I would suggest the 60mm macro and the kenko 1.4xTC and a good focus light and then maybe aditional wetlenses or the 105mm. If mostly wide or CFWA then the Tokina 10-17mm and the kenko 1.4x TC and a mini dome.

 

Regards Mark

[papamac58 7]

what do you think of the tokina 11-16 or 12-24?

[Aussiebyron 57]

The Tokina 11-16 is a great topside lens for the Dx format and I bleieve its a good lens for underwater wreck shots. But not as versatile as the Tokina 10-17mm underwater.

 

Regards Mark

[Viz'art 24]

I concur with Mark here, in DX, the Tokina is perceived as more versatile underwater, still one advantage of rectilinear super wide-angle (of +/-110 degrees FOV) is if you share your passion with topside photography as well, then you will get more use of a 11-16mm or 12-24mm type of lens, I barely touch the Tokina topside and really, has passionate as I am with underwater photography, I still do a tremendous amount of topside photography as well. And for this I will use a lens similar to the 11-16mm & 12-24mm

 

We all have our own little vision of what constitute the perfect tool box, but if you look around, you keep seeing the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye popping up in most of these toolbox, so there is something there that goes beyond personal idiosyncrasies. The vast majority of the housing we ship haves a gear for this lens in the package and at this year Digital shootout, the place looked like a Tokina test facility, it seemed everyone had one of those in their housing.

 

So the question to ask is, how much of a part does underwater photography play in your life? If you are a die hard, ready for therapy nutcase like most of us here, then go straight for the Tokina. If it is only a passion you wish to explore on occasion then, to me at least, it would make more sense to get the Tokina 11-16mm or 12-24mm rectilinear wide-angle and add a valuable extension to you zoom range both top side and underwater.

 

Cheers

[papamac58 7]

I do love topside as well and will probaly use the camera more topside simply because of time constraints and the fact I need the practice and experience. I ask about these lenses simply because I am finding way more of them available for sale. I am such a newby that I don't know the difference in the lens types rectilinear and whatever the 10-17 is, aspherical?

[Viz'art 24]

A focal length is one thing, a field of view quite another, in the case of the Tokina 10-17mm, it yields a 180 degrees field of view when at 10mm (field of view is measured diagonally across the corners, like from the upper left corner of the image to the lower right one). It also lends a distinct curved look to the images (bent door frame, warped telephone pole, oddly curved horizon...). Underwater, there are not many subjects with straight line, so this characteristic really does not show up as much.

 

A rectilinear wide-angle lens of, let’s take the Sigma 10-20mm for this example (just because it has 10mm as well). This lens at 10mm has a field of view of 102.4 degrees, rectilinear means the lens is corrected in order to get rid of the prominent distortion typical of fisheye lenses, (door frame are straight, telephone pole do not look like bananas, horizon is level...). They are prized by photographer when the necessity of keeping things appearing natural is vital to the image being taken.

 

The fisheye will give most topside shot an eerie distorted look, but very importantly, manmade structures are mostly absent underwater and to some extent, most wreck are either a jumble of broken parts, or if in good shape, then are usually constructed with curves in their design, so a fisheye will give you a very wide field of view at a very close distance so you can effectively reduce the water column between you and the subject, you would need to be substantially further away using a rectilinear wide-angle of 102 degrees in order to get the same coverage, so the extra water lowers contrast, robs you of colours and sharpness and introduce more junk (AKA backscatter) in the picture, strobe don’t reach as much and on and on…

 

So in a nut shell, you want the 10mm fisheye because you want to see the same thing at a closer distance than what you would see with the “other” 10mm rectilinear, so we are back at the fork in the road, you take the plunge and go balls to the wall into the underwater craziness or you choose to take less coverage underwater for more usefulness topside.

 

Don’t worry if it sound complicated for now, it will even get worse as you go along, at least for a while , just don’t be shy about asking questions, that is the worst thing you can do to yourself.

[papamac58 7]

Thank you all for all the advice and help so far. I am going to get the tokina 10-17 and the nikon 60 mm macro. With the nikon 60mm macro is it advisable to pay the extra amd get the af-s or will the af work just fine?

[Viz'art 24]

I feel its worth to pay the extra and get the newer AF-S 60mm, both are fine example of optics, but unless you get a cheap deal on the older one, I say, go for new.

[papamac58 7]

Is sub $275 for the af or sub $400 for the af-s a good deal?

[Viz'art 24]

Yep, that is good deal!!!

[papamac58 7]

would this lens be a good choice?

 

AF-S DX Micro 85mm f3.5G ED VR II

[Aussiebyron 57]

I prefer the older AFD 60mm as it auto focuses with the Kenko 1.4x TC and its cheaper. Adding the 1.4x TC to the 60mm turns it into a 84mm with 1.4x image size. Then you can use the Kenko 1.4 TC with the Tokina 10-17mm for CFWA.

 

Regards Mark