Making lens sense

Hi all,

I'm in a very similar situation as Mike Scott who started an interesting thread a few days ago. I'm coming from a Canon G2 in Ikelite housing. It has been a good learning experience both wrt technique and finding out that this is something I want to keep doing. But shutter lag, frequent focusing problems in poor light, and little success with anything resembling macro (no surprize I guess) have made me start looking at upgrading to a dSLR. Although the cost is considerable for a hobby I get to enjoy at most 2 weeks per year, the good news is that the current crop of cameras appears so good that I hope not to need any future upgrades until the camera goes belly-up (perhaps naive but I think I may never improve my photographic skills to the level where I can again honestly blame the camera for limiting the quality of the results).

Based on reviews here and elsewhere the Canon 20D seems to be the sweet spot for me. Given my good experience with the G2 Ikelite housing, the positive reviews, and "lower cost", another Ikelite for the 20D is a logical choice. I am however baffled by the immense selection of lenses and the discussions on this topic. In particular, there are lists of "my dream bag of lenses" but it isn't really clear what underwater shooting situations they are intended for.

In my case, 90% of pictures are fish portraits, and 90% of those fish are in the 3 to 30 inch range (~8-80 cm). In addition, they tend to have tails and not all of them cooperate in staying put as I approach. Granted, more underwater time and especially more shore diving opportunities where I can take my time to get the best shot without loosing the dive master and rest of the group would help a lot. But given past experience, a strategy of taking a first shot at about 2 meter distance followed by a slow approach and more shots as I get closer seems sensible.

The G2 has a 35mm-equivalent focal range of 28-102mm and, if anything, I'd rather extend that a bit on the long end than on the wide end. Most "prefered underwater lense bags" however seem heaviliy biased to the 10-22mm or 17-40mm lenses plus the odd macro lens. Am I doing something completely wrong or am I just the oddball that is interested in moderate size swimmers instead of the "big game", seascapes, wrecks etc that require wide field or the small (semi)stationary stuff that is perfect for macro. I'm sure I'll be getting into macro at some point but by the time I get the 20D plus house and flash, most of the budget will be gone and I'd rather get one good lens then a number of poor quality lenses. I can always add a good macro lens later.

So here is the question. Given my prime subjects what lens would be the best start. So far I've been most tempted by the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (~US$499) and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (~US$369). Both are fast lenses that get good reviews for optical performance and build quality. The latter has the advantage of covering a bit longer 35mm-equivalent focal length than the G2 and could be complemented later nicely by a 17-35mm or 15-30mm lens with just a nice overlap in focal range. The Sigma 18-50mm lens got at least one favourable mention on this list (don't recall the sender), it covers a lot more of the wide angle and in combination with a teleconverter may cover my interest in the telephoto range (if I don't get flamed to death for even wanting it).

On another note, has anyone an idea if Tamron will release a Canon-mount version of its 28-105mm f2.8 lens (~US$679). The extended range at same speed may be worth the extra $300.

As I said, the benefit of SLR to pick your lens is great but bewildening. Discussion by the more experienced users on this list would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps we can redo the popular "Complete lens bag" threat that ran a year ago (see Forums > Best of WetPixel > Tips > Complete Lens Bag) but updated with the latest lenses and particularly including underwater subject areas you'd like to use each lens for. I'm not sure if it works best to sort by general area of photography and list lenses or the other way around. You pick. If it gets to messy I can try to sort all replies into a summary later.

Thanks Bart

Great questions/post! I'll post a brief answer and perhaps flesh out tomorrow.

Any lens that does f2.8 will have fast focusing on your camera. It doesn't really matter if it's a Canon, Sigma, or Tokina. As long as it's not an old-fashioned screw drive lens, they are all equally quick.

Alex uses the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 for fish photos and he likes it. I have a Tokina 28-70 f2.8 and it's a great lens, but it doesn't focus as close as the Sigma.

For lenses greater than 28mm, you can shoot them behind a flat port. Wider, and you'll want a dome, which means you may need a diopter.

Good "fishy" lenses are in the range of 24 to 60 mm in my opinion. That's for a cropped sensor cam. of course.

Cheers

James

I agree with James but would add you should get the camera with the 17-85mm lens, it will get your mojo working right off the bat and as you become more specific you can go to either to the 60mm or 100mm macro or for wide the 10-22mm. The 17-85mm will do good under and will be a good, make that very good lens for the all too long dry intervalles. the reason so many go for the ultra wide (weitwinkel) is there is nothing like theses lenses to show the big blue realm, they are a touch picky to master, but once you dial in, the Wow factor kick's in. the purpose of a wide lens is to grab as much scenery from as close as possible, therefore minimizing the water collumn between you and your subject, less water = more colour. macro or wide, you want to keep that water space to a minimum, especially in murkier water. long lens are acceptable if you dive in Gin clear water only. Anyway, I would'nt worry too much about the extreme lenses for now if I was you, get acquainted with your new rig (the 20D IS a good choice) then the right lenses selection will be way easier.

How rude of me, I should have first welcomed you to Wetpixel. make sure you keep us posted on your choice, what you say is heard and does influence other peoples as I hope you where by other who posted before you.

Cheers & bienvenue!

Any lens that does f2.8 will have fast focusing on your camera.  It doesn't really matter if it's a Canon, Sigma, or Tokina.  As long as it's not an old-fashioned screw drive lens, they are all equally quick.

 

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will disagree with James on this point. I traded in a Sigma 105 for a Canon 100 both f2.8 and found a big difference in focus performance. The response of the motor in the lens is a big factor.

It's not realistic to expect one lens to do all you want. I think the best compromise is get a 50mm or 60mm for the ~30" fish and use the 100 for the 3" fish. If you happen to be diving with the 100 and an interesting 30" fish comes along, get an eyeball shot.

Here's an example of a 3" fish taken with the 100mm

and a group of bigger fish with a Sigma 50mm

At one point, I think nearly all of us went through this selection process. Starting out, I would recommend getting one of the two Canon kit lenses for the 20D, either the 18-55 (cheap) or the 17-85 (moderately expensive). Either will serve you well on land in good light. For your housing setup, I'd recommend going first with the EFS-60mm macro lens. Not too expensive, fast and good macro capability. Macro, in my opinion, is much easier to get a handle on for beginners. And there is macro on nearly every dive. Once you begin to look for the tiny things, you will find no end to them, and they are fascinating. I don't think many of us even begin to notice these things until we get into macro photography. We shoot fish portraits because that's what we can.

You'll have a lot more dives where you get great results with macro because you can do it night and day and in all kinds of water conditions. Additionally, you can probably get by, to begin with, with a single strobe carefully placed. Add a second strobe when you can afford it, then add something like the 10-22mm wide angle lens and a dome port.

Some wide-angle shots definitely have the "wpw" factor. But you gotta get the right conditions with water clarity, sunlight and balanced strobe. Takes awhile to master all these.

Day in and day out, I think you'll get much more satisfaction with the macro ... at least at the outset. Just my 2-cents worth.

Bart,

Welcome to Wetpixel

I would second Jean's recommendation on the 17-85. I got the 20D with this as the kit lens. The Ikelite special dome port for this lens is extremely easy to use. No clamps or sleeves to mess with. The zoom knob is built into the port. I think you will like the 85mm long end for your stated needs. I use a B+W +4 diopter. Minimum focusing distance is just under 14" (from the sensor). It is also an excellent top side lens and pretty much stays on my camera out of the water. I just wish it was a 2.8 lens. And, it is an EF-S lens designed for a select set of Canon DSLR's only. To me this is not a negative as I plan on keeping the 20D for some time and feel I will get my money's worth out of my EF-S lenses. Like you, I considered the Tamron 28-75, but the Ikelte port for it requires the zoom clamp and sleeve set. It's been reviewed as an excellent lens and considerably cheaper than the 17-85.

Good luck with your decision. We've all been there. Just pick a good one and get used to it.

First of all a big thanks for all feedback and the warm welcome. There is quite a broad diversity in opinions and, in some sense, if it were straightforward it would only be half the fun. The most interesting realization ior me was to recognize the two opposite dive&shoot philosophies; the generalist - try to be prepared for whatever exciting encounter you may have on the next dive, versus the specialist - select your setup and then scan for matching subjects. I bet many start in category one and then move to category two over time. Maybe that is not necessarily a bad thing to do.

In my case, with limited "down time" and still so much to discover, it is hard to not enjoy the free-for-all exploration even if quantity may be served more than quality. In addition, when I'm not taking pictures I am taking surveys for REEF. For the 50 weeks per year that I'm not diving my pictures serve as training material to keep up my ID skills. In a cynic kind of way, the fact that the G2 shutter-lag and focussing-drag has resulted in a good number of pictures showing just the tail of a fish "swimming out of the sensor" may have made me the best fish-ID-by tail-only person

On a more serious note, seeing Herb's magnificent shots and many more in other posts and magazines really does make me want to work towards that level. I'm planning to book our next dive trip to a location where we can take both guided boat dives and unlimeted shore dives (Bay Islands?). I can then use the latter to take my time and work on improving my technique and fish stalking skills.

So did all of this help me with my decisions? Well yes and no.

Seeing Herbs shot with the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro definately caught my interest, this lens clearly can do a very good job for fish portraits of the smaller swimmers, as well as the traditional macro. I also agree with ReefRoamer that getting into macro will actually force me to see a whole new world, good for my fish and invertebrate ID and general enjoyment of diving. Macro could be my first foray into becoming a "specialist". The replies had recommendations for all Canon macro lenses. The 180mm f3.5L is simply too expensive right now and it isn't listed on Ike's port chart. So it has to be either the EF-S 60 or the 100mm. Cost doesn't differ too much, both have the same f2.8 fast aperture and fast and smooth ring USM focus. I'm not too concerned about the 60mm lens being an "EF-S" lens. The 100mm USM lens has two choices on Ike's port chart; the #5505.45 flat port and the #5508.45 flat port with focus. The EF-S 60 only has a flat port without focus option (#5502). Does that mean the latter can only be used with autofocus? I'm leaning towards the 100mm but could use some more input.

For my general purpose "fishy lens" the situation hasn't gotten much clearer. Is the need for a special clamp and sleeve set for the Tamron 28-75 (and many other zooms) really a big deal? is it just hard to get in and out of the housing or, more serious, harder to operate underwater? The f2.8 aperture of the Tamron at reasonable cost and good lens quality is very attractive. My understanding is that focus speed and accuracy of the camera electronics is independent of lens brand, but the ring USM motor is faster and less noisy then in non-Canon lenses. $750 more for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is a lot of extra money at the serious amateur level for the little extra speed.

Obviously I like the focal range of the EF-S 17-85, it would indeed be a great surface lens and that alone may make it worthwhile. But I was willing to give up on the wide end by going to the Tamron 28-75, in exchange for faster aperture, better image quality, and even save some money. What do people think. are hints that f5.6 apertures and higher are getting into the unreliable autofocus range for the 20D exagerated or is there good reason to aim for faster apertures. In addition, how much does the ability to blur background by opening up the diaphragm suffer when you go from a f2.8 to a f5.6 lens.

I'll postpone my verdict on this type of lens, do some more homework and keep reading wetpixel and UW photography for inspiration.

Bart

Bart,

The flat port for the EF-S 60 does not have a focus knob. You can actually use the 9059.8 zoom clamp and sleeve and operate the manual focus ring with the housing zoom knob (I just hooked it up and it works---a little difficult to line everything up---but it works) The 60mm has excellent autofocus and I don't see myself using it in manual. Most users here report that the 100mm doesn't focus as well in low light and prefer using the 60mm in these conditions. The Tamron 28-75 may be a good choice and in your budget range. The zoom clamp/sleeve setup works fine once you get the hang of lining everything up correctly. I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts on this one as well and how it compares to the 17-85. My vote would be to start with the 17-85 and the 60mm. I don't think you can go wrong with that combination.

Hi all,

Bart is pretty much interested in the same kind of subjects and setup as I am. I'm currently using a Nikon CP5000 in an Aquatica housing, which I really love, but I'm not loving the autofocus and shutter delays. I do love the close focus distance, so I wondered about the post that said the 17-85" lense had a 14" focus distance (from the sensor) this seems long to me. I can get my lense port 2-4" from the subject with my setup; I don't know how far away that puts the sensor, but a lot closer than 14" , I'm thinking.

I chose the CP5000 (28-85", 2.8-4.8) in large part because of it's good macro ability without an added lens. So it seems that I would have to go to a dedicated lens to get this in the D20.

So what's the focus distance on the 60mm lens?

I'd love to get the wide angle package, but don't want to sacrifice my ability to get close. Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks very much,

Beth

Hi Beth,

Getting close is one thing, but the REASON you get close with your Coolpix 5000 is so that your subject will be magnified large in the photo.

What if the photo would look the same (large subject) but you could shoot that picture from 14" away? That would be pretty good right? You wouldn't scare the fish/shrimp/etc away, and it would be a lot easier to get the light from the flash onto the picture.

This whole concept is called "working distance" and usually, more is better. If a lens will fill up the frame with a subject that's 36mm across then that's called 1:1 (35mm equivalent).

The 50/60mm range of macro lenses will usually do 1:1 at about 8" from the sensor (or about 4" from the lens tip if the lens is 4" long). The 100mm type macro lenses will do 1:1 at 12" or so. This gives you a little "wiggle room" with your subject.

The 17-85mm is not a true macro lens, so at it's closest range, say 14" from the sensor (about 10" from the tip) it may shoot 1:3 or so. If you want to get closer, and get more magnification, you can reduce the distance by screwing a diopter onto your 17-85 lens.

Cheers

James

Beth,

James is referring to getting closer with a diopter BEHIND A FLAT PORT on the Canon 17-85mm IS lens. If using the +4 recommended diopter behind Ikelite's DOME PORT you will have full range (17-85mm) in focus below water.

As James describes this lens is not a true macro lens, but it does provide a nice working range for many new shooters, and I use mine pretty frequently above and below.

YMMV

David Haas

Welcome Bart -

I would not recommend a mid-range zoom to start with your DSLR. Fish photography is very difficult, and you might want to learn the basics of traditional macro and wide-angle before you move on to moving fish!

Kasey

What if the photo would look the same (large subject) but you could shoot that picture from 14" away? That would be pretty good right? You wouldn't scare the fish/shrimp/etc away, and it would be a lot easier to get the light from the flash onto the picture.

 

This whole concept is called "working distance" and usually, more is better. If a lens will fill up the frame with a subject that's 36mm across then that's called 1:1 (35mm equivalent).

 

The 50/60mm range of macro lenses will usually do 1:1 at about 8" from the sensor (or about 4" from the lens tip if the lens is 4" long). The 100mm type macro lenses will do 1:1 at 12" or so. This gives you a little "wiggle room" with your subject.

Now, those are comparisons that I can understand; the concept of working distance is very helpful, thanks James.

Now I have to figure out how I can compare this to the working distance on my CP5000 and it's 1:x factor. I do have something comparable to 60 mm in my 22-85 built-in lens; in macro mode you can't get out to 85mm and stay in the macro focus "sweet spot", so maybe you are close to 60; I thought 85mm zoom gave me 1:3, so at 60 am I at 1:2+? Maybe I have a pretty good setup for the $$, if I have to get at least 2 lenses to do what the Nikon does now (ignoring the SLR advantage for a moment).

Oh boy - getting confused again...

RE: Diopters- I think I have full range of 28-85 now in my Aquatica housing. I think I would go with another Aquatica housing if I went to the D20. If I had the D20 with 17-85 in aquatica dome port, this would give me full range no? I'm not sure I can absorb diopters right now, I'm just grasping lenses