Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Haven't heard that rumor but would very much like to hear it NOW! So c'mon Chrism... let it out... are we gonna have a Canon 12-25??? When???? Tell us all you heard and how believeble your source is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see the 24-85 2.8-4 D getting some attention - it's my favorite "walking around" lens. Not quite as sharp and colors don't "pop" the way do with the 17-35, but this is a very decent compromise, sacrificing a very small amount of quality to get a much wider zoom range. The fact that this lens extends into the micro is a bonus - it's quite usable for bugs or flowers. This is the lens that "lives" on whatever camera I'm carrying topside, on a walk, or in the car. (If I carry any additional lenses in a bag, I will take the 17-35 and/or the 80-400 VR.)

 

But I wasn't that impressed using this lens underwater. I got a zoom gear for the 24-85 from Subal and tried it out - admittedly only once, two or three dives on one day, and using my full-frame film SLR housing. Results were poor, for me anyway. Not an experiment I'm likely to repeat, though I've keep the zoom gear in case I ever need to use it as a back-up lens.

 

When I started underwater, I only used prime lenses - the 20 mm and 28 mm for wide-angle, plus the 105 mm for macro. I still like the 20 mm., but nowadays use the 12-24 and 17-35 for digital w/a, and would use the 17-35 with my film housing. I'm still learning to use the 10.5, but it's starting to make sense to me.

 

Here's my list:

 

Underwater:

w/a: 10.5 mm f/2.8 DX ED G

12-24 mm f/4 DX ED G

17-35 mm f/2.8 ED

20 mm 2.8 D (no longer used much)

28 mm 2.8 D (no longer used much)

 

macro: 105 mm 2.8 D (w/ 3T, 4T diopters + 2x teleconverter)

 

Topside:

24-85 f/2.8-4 D

12-24 mm f/4 DX ED G (digital only)

17-35 mm f/2.8 ED (digital or film)

50 mm f/1.8 (low-light, lightest weight)

80-400 f/4.5-5.6 D VR

 

About the only lens still on my "wish list" is the 70-180 macro zoom, but I think I can get by with the 105 mm for awhile yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the rave about the 12-24 and either the 17-35 and 17-55 shouldnt a new D70 buyer leave the kit lens at the photo shop and go home with one of the above. Granted the initial $ will be higher but as they move up the kit lens will become a $300 paper weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all of the rave about the 12-24 and either the 17-35 and 17-55 shouldnt a new D70 buyer leave the kit lens at the photo shop and go home with one of the above. Granted the initial $ will be higher but as they move up the kit lens will become a $300 paper weight.

 

Well... the kit lens is an 18-70, which with the 1.5 FOV effect gives you an effective 27-105. You get some reach from the 18-70 that none of the lenses you mention provide, while getting almost as wide as the 17-35 and 17-55.

 

As underwater photographers we tend to focus on the extreme wide and macro, but for the average shooter above water, the kit lens gives a very useful set of focal lengths. As the kit lens is a small variable aperture lens (f3.5-4.5), it is a lot smaller and lighter than the 17-35 or 17-55, which makes it an easier "carry about" lens as well.

 

I would say get the kit lens, not necessarily with a view to shooting it underwater and the 12-24. This would get you true, very good quality wideangle to a very moderate tele (105 gives a nice FOV for head and shoulders portraiture etc etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Craig. At $300, the kit lens is a steal. I have been waiting for a lens like this for 2 years, ever since I got a DSLR. When I got my S2, the only "walkabout" lens was the sigma 15-30 (HUGE) or the Nikkor 18-35. I got the 18-35, but it's a $450 lens with less of a zoom, and it's not AF-S.

 

The 18-70 is an excellent lens, not just a "good" lens called an excellent value.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon 15mmFE

...that's it :lol:

 

i'll be buying the 100mm Macro before my next trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just one more (Sigma) bag for Canon.

 

underwater (fullframe/film EOS):

 

Sigma 15mm fisheye. Nice close focus ability (15cm)

Sigma 50mm. 1:1, therefore again no Canon

 

 

topside:

 

Sigma 15-30, first WW Zoom for my 10D. 17-40 is simply not wide enough

 

Sigma 12-24, not sooo sharp, simply couldn’t resist, it’s wide, also widest SLR full frame lens ever build.

 

Canon 28-135 IS USM, still love it, great walkaround range on film, the only stabilized WW, best non L Zoom? But not so versatile anymore on cropped camera.

 

Canon 50mm, don’t use it, originally thought it simply belongs into a lens bag.

 

Canon 100-400L IS, wanting just one zoom covering tele stuff, superb lens.

 

Sigma 18-50, stopped down sharp enough for shooting through 9 layers of cockpit window, where you sometimes simply cannot change lenses :lol: Gives little WW & tele. OK for 90 Euros.

 

Oh – not to forget my old baby, there is some Nikon label in my lens bag – Nikonos 20mm & 35mm.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to a comment by "Frogfish" concerning lack of sharpness he experienced using 24-85D underwater.

 

I have had numerous pictures made with this lens published in a variety of magazines. Most recently Diver Magazine in England ran a shot of a Leafy Seadragon as a full double page opener to a story on photographing seadragons.

 

A bit more than a year ago Patricia Danna, a friend, had a double page spread, also of a Leafy, in the US Sport Diver magazine, and some time before that a picture of a young Galapagos sea lion page plus size in Sport Diver.

 

I suggest "Frogfish" give the lens another try, or get another sample to try underwater.

 

Pat and I both use the lens, with both F5 and now the S2. I like it better on the F5 because I find its coverage range more in tune with how I really "see" and prefer to shoot. We use the lens behind Seacam's wideport dome which is about a 6" diameter curve dome and with 60mm of extension tube between the housing body and the dome port. The lens is used only in the macro range where there is no need for diopters. With the S2, which is in an Ikelite housing, we use a homemade ike-to-seacam adapter that keeps the configuration about the same.

 

I think it is possible that other lenses may be technically sharper, but none with the versatility of this lens. Not having to use a diopter evens that score underwater. And that versatility correlates to shots gotten instead of chances missed. This is also why I use TTL with every lens, not just macro lenses.

 

divegypsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't heard that rumor but would very much like to hear it NOW! So c'mon Chrism... let it out... are we gonna have a Canon 12-25??? When???? Tell us all you heard and how believeble your source is

 

Well, I think he's believable.... Rumor is there is a beta version floating around. This was probably 4 months ago that I heard this....And at that time I didn't know what 12-25 was from a hole in the wall

 

Wish I knew more.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DiveGypsy,

 

Thanks for your post, which has got me thinking. When I tried the 24-85 underwater a few years ago, it was using the smaller Subal dome, with an extension ring. As I recall, I also think I was using a +2 or +3 diopter, which might have been a mistake. The problem wasn't really sharpness, however. More all around lack of contrast, but there were other problems. There wasn't a single keeper on the 2 or 3 rolls I shot that day.

 

My main interest in trying this lens at that time was to find out whether it might be possible, in a pinch, to shoot an acceptable macro through a dome port, using the 24-85's 1:1.5 macro capability. In other words, to mount the lens for wide angle but retain the capability to shoot close-up or macro. If this had worked, it would have been pretty neat. The macro shots I took that day weren't exactly complete failures, but they weren't very impressive either.

 

I've recently thought about trying this lens underwater again, but with the bigger dome. It's also easier to dive where I live now, so the "opportunity cost" of this kind of experimentation isn't what it used to be. I guess one thing holding me back has been that I've been so happy with the 12-24 and 17-35 zooms underwater for wide angle, and have also been experimenting with the 10.5 fisheye. If I did try the 24-85 underwater again, it would only be with my film SLR housing, not the S2. Like you, I don't see this range as terribly useful for 1.5x framed digital.

 

Also, the lens extends in length quite a bit through the zoom range, so I suspect that it would be necessary to select an extension ring that would optimise for one end. Befire, I would have said that obviously the end to optimise for should be the wide end, but it sounds like you and Pat are actually using the 24-85 as a macro +close-up lens. Are you also shooting it in a flat port? I hadn't thought of this before, but I will now.

 

As I said, the lens is still my favorite "walking around" lens above water.

 

Frogfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might make a good sticky thread, as I find myself reffering back to it often.

 

just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guy, there is a lot of zoom talk out there but almost no fixed lens chatter. Nodal point alignement is constantly shifting in a zoom optical formula. so I understand the entry level option of going to zoom lens but in a no compromise high end system, I beg to differ. So my top end list is.

 

For Nikon type 1:5

 

10.5mm fF:2,8 Fisheye

14mm F:2,8

20mm F:2,8

60mm F:2,8 micro Nikkor

105mm F:2,8 micro Nikkor

and 70-180 micro Nikkor wich is my only zoom concession.

 

For FF skip the 10.5mm and go 16mm Fisheye instead

 

Entry level, well by all mean use zoom lens, make sense moneywise and sincerely think it as to to with commitment in the end, how much are you willing to spend on U/W photography gears :?:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nodal point alignement is constantly shifting in a zoom optical formula.

 

Jean,

What about the Nikon 12-24 DX zoom? The front element does not move during zooming, therefore (IMHO) the nodal point does not change. Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think you're missing anything at all. This was one of the points I was trying to make in my comment above, to the effect that the 24-85 extends quite a lot through its zoom range, and that my problems with this lens may have been related to the fact that the port I was using wasn't really optimal for either end.

 

In addition to the wonderful 12-24 DX, the front element of the equally (or perhaps more) spectacular Nikon 17-35 mm also doesn't much when the lenx is zoomed. I haven't had any of the problems I experienced with the 24-85 zoom with either of these two lenses.

 

Frogfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

 

Interesting. I recently bought the Nikon 18-70 DX and used it with my S2 behind the Aquatica 8 inch dome, with a +4 diopter. I got some really nice results, and both extremes of the zoom range. The 18-70 changes nodal point by at least 1 1/2 inches over the zoom range. I have ordered a 6 inch dome with the objective of making a more compact rig for general "fish portraits through close up" use. I'll post results when I get to try the setup next month in Roatan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried the 24-85G underwater with my Nexus rig using both a dome (4") and a flat port and had very good results. I also have the D but it's very hard to get a Nexus ring on that lens to provide zoom capability. I did not use a diopter with the G lens although I had a wet diopter for the flat port. My advise for G users is to get a 67-62 stepdown ring, a 62mm lenscap and install the combination permanently (except the lenscap while shooting, of course!). The stepdown ring will protect the fragile plastic threads and allow the use of standard Nikon diopters if you like. No vignetting occurs.

 

Problem with either of these lenses is that you won't get the magnification you think you will because of the working distances. If you are expecting 1:2 or better I think you'll be disappointed. Good for fish portraits. I've used it for sharks and for frogfish.

 

I used a Tamron 28-75 with the Aquatica/Kodak on the last trip behind the Aquatica 8" dome. It lacks the close focus of the Nikon 24-85D but it worked (quite well, in fact) in a pinch. I've also been looking for a midrange zoom with decent macro performance for the same reasons Robert has. I think the 24-85 is an OK solution using DX sensors but full frame complicates matters. I've looked on the Canon side and it seems that Canon doesn't offer midrange zooms at all with decent close focus capability. Tamron makes a 28-135 with OK close focus but I have no experience with it. The long end may provide enough working distance for full frame and reasonable magnification.

 

Eric, you prefer the 17-40 over the 16-35? The 16-35 would appear to have the edge in autofocus because of the extra light but the extra length and lighter weight would be nice on the 17-40. How does the 17-40 AF work underwater using your 1D* bodies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used a Tamron 28-75 with the Aquatica/Kodak on the last trip ...

 

 

 

You've been holding out on us big time. :)

 

What do think of this setup? Where are the photo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too tried the 24~85 f2.8~4 underwater and was disappointed to find that it simply wasn't as sharp as I wanted. I ran it as a macro zoom on an S2Pro behind a flat port and the camera proved to be very capable of showing up weaknesses in the lens. A real pity because it is potentially a very versatile lens.

 

Dream kits do depend on what you shoot and where you shoot, I tend to favour 50/60 macros in our murky temperate waters. I really like the 12~24 and despite having switched to Canon still keep the 12~24 just in case ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now getting a D70 in Ike housing set up... thinking an early bag is just a Nik 10.5 FE / Nik 16 FE / Nik 60 macro is good (these 3 go in one dome + 1 flat port)... go to rectilinear WA lenses with another port later, and retaining the option for a longer macro, too (Sigma 150 f2.8 HSM, if supported, with its port, later?).

 

I have the 10.5 and 60 (Nik) already.

 

For long lenses: the Sigma 100-300 f4? Sig 70-200? Nik 70-200? (both sigs have integral focus (HSM), the Nik has internal focus (AF-S) and VR). With 1.4x TC? Still thinking...leaning Sig 100-300 w/ 1.4X TC...for value and reach.

 

What thinkest thou ... if anything?

 

And of course a D2X in a Subal or Seacam when the early adopters move on ...

 

All the best,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris, I have the 70-200mm HSM Sigma it is a very sharp lens, and pretty fast focusing, but if you can afford the Nikkor with the VR please do, I had some jam up with my Nikon D100 and the Sig 70-200 (not the S2pro nor the N90s) it seize the camera and you have to shut every thing off and reopen the camera, (real drag when your shooting cavorting right whale). I had four customer complains for this problem, exchanged the lens and never heard of it anymore, please make sure you buy with a good return policy when you do. aside from that perk I had total satisfaction from this lens so far.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris....I'm hearing good things about the Sigma 15....

 

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl,

 

Yes, the Sigma 15 FE looks good ... but the Nikon 16 FE fits behind the same Ike port as the Nkon 10.5 FE (the Sigma doesn't, according to Ike's chart) .

 

And...I just bought (yesterday) a lightly used Nikon 16 FE for less than the new price of the Sigma. Gotta be quick!. As I save the cost/bother of an additional port with this lens, this choice is doubly appealling. So my UW lens set up looks like 10.5FE and 16FE, with a 60 Nikon for macro. Fisheye man. And I get to remain a Nikon glass snob, for at least one more lens!

 

In the next year or two, I'll think about longer macro, probably Nikon 105, or Sigma 150 -- I look forward to hearing more about the Sigma, and hope that it fulfills its promise and that Ike will figure out a way to house this HSM macro lens. Comments?

 

After that, when the wallet has stopped smoldering, I may add recitlinear WA lenses (Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 plus Sigma 14?). Assuming I'm still in an Ike housing at this time, the Nikon 12-24 uses the same port as the Sigma 14 ... which can also be used with the 60 mm ... keeping my dive clutter at a somewhat less unreasonable level.

 

Then it'll probably be time to look at upgrading the body/housing...to the D3Z with an unobtanium housing featuring a Plusgrand IMAX sensaround viewer and quadruple sync bulkheads supporting x-TTL.

 

Landwise...

Jean, I like the look of the Nikon 70-200, with AF-S and VR, but it is probably too dear for me. So, when I can afford it, I may try the 100-300 Sigma + 1.4X TC (HSM, but no OS) -- only a stop slower, reputedly sharp, longer, and less money. This seems like a more useful lens than a 70-200 for me. Thanks for the heads-up on the compatibility issues; I will read up on it and test carefully.

 

Thanks for all the help!

 

All the best,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this thread pop up and that james started it a while ago.

 

I couldn't help but notice you have a 70-200mm canon now you swapped over. (from UWP)

I was considering buying one too as it is a great land lens too. I am not sure Sea and Sea houses it though .. I could be way wrong there, but that would justify buying it if it could be housed as well. I would also like to know how it acts underwater .. even though we have different cropping i don't think I have even seen anyone discuss that lense in underwater use .. maybe I just haven't looked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris....your logic is serving you well :D;)

 

BTW....I use the 80-400VR topside and it's an awesome lens IMO....lots of fun to use and very sharp....

 

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having difficulty with the latest luggage restrictions. Particularly with the 50# limit on checked bags.

 

I would like some recommendations on wht you would take to the Galapagos for a week... I'm shooting a Canon 5D and so is the wife so we can have 2 rigs topside...

 

Here are my choices (all Canon):

 

85mm f/1.2L - This is fast becoming our favorite topside lens

14mm f/2.8L USM - This is my UW lens so I'm takin' it

100mm f/2.8 Macro USM - The wife's UW lens so this one is coming too!

24-105 mm f4 L IS - Nice range but maybe too slow?? A little soft?

300mm f/4L - Heavy but... what about those critters...

135mm F/2 L USM - Fast lens. Great for Bull Riding shots!

EF 1.4x II Teleconverter

 

The 1.4x fits on the 300 and the 135

 

So as you can see if I bring all of these plus two bodies plus.... plus...

 

Is the 24-105 worth bringing? The 300 seems to be a definite front runner.

 

Current thnking is that for land the 300 would be mounted on one body and the 85 on the other... bring the 1.4x extender.... The 14mm doesn't weigh too much to pack to the mountains

 

Or do we bring the macro? It is a nice 100mm lens too.

 

Tripod seems to be way overkill. Monopod maybe though.

 

Oh yes, we will be going to machu picchu the week before the dive trip.

 

I'm soooo confused :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...