So, finally I figured out why things seemed so quiet at wetpixels and found my way here. I'll start by re-posting a question I had over there, well past the big exodus I believe. Slightly edited it goes like this:

 

In a week I'll go on a wrecks-and-reefs liveaboard in the Red Sea. Wrecks will be my main attraction and I have of course started considering what lens(-es) to bring. I think I have a fairly good idea of what might be suitable but I'm open to thoughts that haven't occurred to me.

I'm using a Nikon Z7 in a Sea&Sea housing. Notable lenses I own and have ports for:

• Nikon 14-30/4 with S&S correction lens, and 230 mm zen dome
• Nikon 8-15 fisheye (have smaller dome for this if I want to do CFWA, have no zoom gear so it will be at 15 mm)
• Nikon 24-70/4
• Nikon 60 mm macro (F-mount)
• Nikon 105 mm macro (Z-mount)

It's likely I'll want to bring few lenses, for space and weight reasons.

For a long time I was considering bringing only the 14-30 and be done with it, but now I figure maybe I'll throw in the fisheye too. Though wrecks may be what the 14-30 is mainly for?
The 24-70 fits in the same dome and extension ring as the 14-30 but I don't see when I would use that on this trip. Possibly topside.
Macro - well that would be for some of the reef dives I suppose. But as stated, the wrecks are what I'm going for. The macros will stay home unless I'm convinced otherwise.

 

So in case it's not clear, the question is: would you advise something else, and in that case, why?

Hey!

 

For me Red Sea is fisheye country and I use either the Tokina 10-17 on my D500 or the Nikkor 8-15. I'd use either of those for the wrecks or reefs.

 

When I was shooting a D800 I only used the Sigma 15mm. So on your Z7, I'd go with the 8-15 set to the 15mm end with a small dome. Nice for travelling.

 

Maybe it's just me and I'm spoiled by Lembeh and the Philippines, but I've never found macro worthwhile in the RS. So to keep weight down, I don't take a macro lens but do take a Z6III for topside with, usually, either the Z 24-70mm or 24-200mm.

 

I couldn't see a use for the 24-70 underwater.

 

Have a great time!

 

Hi, 

 

I suppose the main question between the 14-30 and the fisheye is will the fisheye distortion bother you for the wrecks?

 

Obviously, the fisheye will get you closer so potentially better IQ with the less water to shoot through but if you really don't want that bendy look then you're going to have to go with the 14-30

 

I know we have this constant battle with weight allowances on airlines but the weight of a small wide angle lens should be manageable regardless, I often put things like that in my pockets until I'm through security, so if you're taking the big dome I'd also take both lenses

 

The Red Sea does have macro stuff, but not to the same level as macro oriented areas - there are some nudibranch, gobies, blennies etc but I find that unless you're at a specific site with specific targets then its more of a 'fishy' place so depending on your style, the 60mm might get more use than the 100mm

 

I'm not sure I'd bother taking the 24-70, it would easily be my last lens out of that lineup to take

 

Mike

Edited March 5Mar 5 by Pooley

Thanks for the replies! Ok you have me convinced, I'll bring the fisheye too. I'm fairly certain - no, I think - I will most often not want the fisheye look on the wrecks. But I'll try it, I might like it!

 

The 24-70 would likely be for topside, should I bring it. I could switch it out for my 24-50 if I want to save on weight.

(I think the 24-70 might have a place for sharks I don't expect to come right up to me, but that's another trip, don't expect any sharks here)

 

As for weight allowances my bet is on not getting my hand luggage weighed. It mostly works out. When it doesn't, and it turns out my meek bag weighs 17 kg, it can become kind of sweaty. Has happaned once.

If you're doing a wreck based itinerary I'm guessing its one of the more northern routes?

 

If so I wouldn't expect much in the way of shark action

 

Hope its a good trip

 

Mike

4 hours ago, Pooley said:

If you're doing a wreck based itinerary I'm guessing its one of the more northern routes?

 

If so I wouldn't expect much in the way of shark action

 

Hope its a good trip

 

Mike

 

Thanks! No, I don't expect any sharks at all. Northern route, yes.

Just an update on how it went:

I brought the 14-30 with Sea&Sea correction lens and 230 mm dome, as well as 8-15 fisheye with small dome. I used the 14-30 on the first wreck dive. Then I switched to the fisheye which stayed on for the rest of the trip. Not what I expected before the trip.

 

Turned out that the fisheye distortion didn't bother me with the wrecks. Also, 14 rectilinear mm looked a bit too extreme. 16 mm was generally nicer. I understand none of this is news to most of you, but I discover it for the first time!

 

Though there is a case for the rectilinear lens. In some circumstances it allows for more dramatic perspectives. And I wished I had taken it for the Thistlegorm penetration, where I sometimes wanted to photograph without strobes. With the S&S correction lens I can keep the aperture at f/5,6 or slightly smaller and get decent corners. That would have been nice for light-gahtering purposes.

59 minutes ago, horvendile said:

With the S&S correction lens I can keep the aperture at f/5,6 or slightly smaller and get decent corners.

 

That's interesting. I've heard generally that even with the S&S correction lens and a 230 dome, apertures need to be well stopped down to get good edges. 

I always take a fisheye and a longer macro (100, 105 or 90) as I think Egypt is great for fish portraits, especially Anthias and Tiger cardinal fish. The only trip I would also take a WACP on would be a deep south trip for the Oceanics, otherwise I am happy to leave it behind 

 

Fisheye for the wrecks and reefs and longer macro for the Portraits 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Byron said:

I always take a fisheye and a longer macro (100, 105 or 90) as I think Egypt is great for fish portraits, especially Anthias and Tiger cardinal fish. The only trip I would also take a WACP on would be a deep south trip for the Oceanics, otherwise I am happy to leave it behind 

 

Fisheye for the wrecks and reefs and longer macro for the Portraits 

 

 

 

Great Beautiful photo ♡

On 4/1/2025 at 11:10 PM, Byron said:

I always take a fisheye and a longer macro (100, 105 or 90) as I think Egypt is great for fish portraits, especially Anthias and Tiger cardinal fish. The only trip I would also take a WACP on would be a deep south trip for the Oceanics, otherwise I am happy to leave it behind 

 

Fisheye for the wrecks and reefs and longer macro for the Portraits 

 

 

 

 

It's a personal preference for sure... For me I just don't understand why would anyone shoot wrecks intentionally distorted... To me this fisheye look on anything underwater is a bit of a farce. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5Apr 5 by RomiK

As you say, RomiK, it’s all about personal preferences. I like the wreck image and, to me, it’s not so obviously a fisheye. 

11 minutes ago, TimG said:

As you say, RomiK, it’s all about personal preferences. I like the wreck image and, to me, it’s not so obviously a fisheye. 

 

the chimney?... again, it's a personal preference I get it but in my view there is an artistic expression - intentional distortions - and documentary and educational value. Fisheyes in geometric world is all about expression and this is why we see it mainly on skateboard pics etc above water - hence the reason no mfg is rushing mirrorless versions of these. Just the underwater world seems to be stuck in those in part for technical in part for artistic and in part for trend setters... Just my 2c

Edited April 5Apr 5 by RomiK

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

 

the chimney?... again, it's a personal preference I get it but in my view there is an artistic expression - intentional distortions - and documentary and educational value. Fisheyes in geometric world is all about expression and this is why we see it mainly on skateboard pics etc above water - hence the reason no mfg is rushing mirrorless versions of these. Just the underwater world seems to be stuck in those in part for technical in part for artistic and in part for trend setters... Just my 2c

I would say that of all Wide angle photography wrecks are the ones that most commonly people would reach for a rectilinear lens over a fisheye due to the distortion on the straight lines as you say, something such as a 16-35 does give you a more true and straight representation of a wreck, especially when shooting inside. However I would personally always chose the fisheye for a reef, it really makes things pop and allows you to get very close and eliminate a lot of the water between you and the subject giving clean and crisp shots. Both are good options, and if you have the choice it's likely just better to own both so you have variety in your portfolio, the rise of water contact optics though has really reduced the number of people using lens such as 16-35 

On 4/1/2025 at 10:10 PM, Byron said:

I always take a fisheye and a longer macro (100, 105 or 90) as I think Egypt is great for fish portraits, especially Anthias and Tiger cardinal fish. The only trip I would also take a WACP on would be a deep south trip for the Oceanics, otherwise I am happy to leave it behind 

 

Fisheye for the wrecks and reefs and longer macro for the Portraits 

 

 

 

Beautiful images, I'm not one for wrecks but that really stands out nicely.