Nikon DSLR lens choice

One of the most common questions on this forum is what lenses should I choose for my DSLR underwater? And I thought I would take a different approach to answering it.

A recent and on-going project of mine involved an image submission of over 200 pix - with a good variety of types of UW shots. Of these 177 were taken with Nikon DSLRs (the rest on slide film or topside) and I thought it would be interesting to share which lenses produced the most publishable shots.

I realise that this isn't perfect, as certain lenses (like the 10.5mm) are probably not ideal for beginners and the results are also skewed by my style of photography. But I hope that it provides some interest and use. Below is a table of my lenses with % of shots from each in the collection.

10.5mm FE - 32%

12-24mm - 1%

16mm FE - 19%

17-35mm - 6%

20mm - 1%

28-70mm - 12%

60mm - 8%

105mm - 20%

You can see some of these iimages here: http://www.amustard.com/newgal/

As you can see, a third of the images (57 in total) were taken with the 10.5mm FE. And if I add together the 10.5 and 16mm they account for >50% of all the images. Also of interest is that I find the 105mm twice as productive as the 60mm macro lens, however if you add together the 60 and the 28-70 they equal the 105mm.

So to rank them in order of importance (in productivity):

10.5mm, 105mm, 16mm, 28-70mm, 60mm, 17-35mm, 12-24mm, 20mm.

Alex

p.s. I also own a Sigma 150mm macro lens, but have bought it since making this submission.

Alex. What factors govern your choice between the 16mm FE and the 12-24 ?

I've not used my 15mm FE much since I started using the 10-22mm since the low end of the 10-22 has about the same FOV as the 15mm FE.

Interesting.

I would have to look, which i am too lazy to do...but, i have 3 or 400 with a major UW stock agency.

I think probably 65% are from a NikV and 15mm.

20% with my 12-24mm

12% with the 105

3% with the 60mm

My next submission will be skewed toward the 10.5 and 105 i think.

But if you look at Alex and my stuff together the big thing that stands out...if you are looking to sell images....shoot WA.

Alex. What factors govern your choice between the 16mm FE and the 12-24 ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question, Herb.

The main reason was that I already owned a 16mm and not a 12-24mm.

I also think that the corners are better on the fisheye than on the rectilinear. I actually got the 12-24mm from a friend, who was happy to swap it one of the two 16mm I had, because he prefers the 16mm.

Since getting the 12-24mm I use them about 50:50.

Alex

I totally agree with Mike about selling images. Wide and then wider if you can. The 10.5mm is invaluable as it allows you to create space, which is always what advertising or editorial clients want.

Alex

I totally agree with Mike about selling images. Wide and then wider if you can. The 10.5mm is invaluable as it allows you to create space, which is always what advertising or editorial clients want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally agree - outside Scuba Mags and Science Textbooks macro doesn't sell very well.

And most Scuba Mags prefer wide angle as well.

M

Interesting thread, Alex

When I used to shoot film the 16mm fisheye was the money lens. I used it for the lions share of my wide angle work and the diver shots often I took with it were often the ones selected for the cover shot of the magazine for the stories I submitted.

In fact, not counting full page spreads, advertisements, brochures, etc, I just took a quick count of the magazine cover shots I've done. Out of 36 covers the breakdown by lens is as follows:

16mm (10.5) - 27 covers

24mm - 1 cover

20mm - 4 covers ( a couple of topside shots)

60mm - 4 covers

For macro work, the 60mm is king in British Columbia. Primarily, because it

is easier to get close to marine life here. Although I do tend to use the 60mm

quite a bit in the tropics for macro work and favor the 105mm for fish portraits.

Since switching over to digital last year (D70), I have been using the 10.5mm for divers and have found the results compare with what I could achieve while shooting with film using the 16mm.

In any event, I agree that the widest lens possible is often best for wide angle work. If a photographer could only afford two lenses, they could easily do great work with a 10.5 and perhaps a 60mm or 105mm lens.

Cheers all,

Jett

Hey Jett you got a website?

http://jettbritnell.com/

I was browsing it the other day, great photos, but some of the galleries are not working in my Mac.

Luiz

Well thats easy isn't it.

Surprising i don't know him when he is from the same place as me, or at least where i used to be...

Hi all,

My website was supposed to be be pulled down so my wife can fix it. I myself am reading up on Golive CS2. When I have/find time... I plan to revamp it.

PS Mike V- I live in Port Coquitlam and was a contributing editor for DIVER magazine since the early 90's.

Regards, Jett

Hi Jett

Yea checked out your site, lots of diver in there. Good stuff

I grew up in North Delta, then moved out to South Surrey, did most of my training at Ocean Pro...now i'm even further south...

Alex:

How many of the 16mm FE shots were on digital? Point being the 16mm on slide film is the rough equivelent of the 10.5mm on digital--potentially strengthening your case for 180 deg FOV.

As a beginner, I get most of my "keepers" with the 60mm but the ones I like to look at are WA.

You are right about the 16mm. But the numbers above were for the 177 digital pictures in the book.

There are also 43 film shots in there too. Here are the stats for them:

16mm - 44%

17-35mm - 25%

60mm - 9%

105mm - 16%

15mm Nik V - 5%

So there is actually even more of a fisheye bias there.

Alex

Sooo, you gonna tell us what it is for? B)

Alex,

Have you had all the lenses over the period during which the pictures were taken.

The hit rate of the 12-24 seems very low but I'm wondering if that is because you have had it for relatively less time than the others ?

This is particularly when compared to the 17-35 which you used a lot with film. Has your attitude to this range changed ?

Mark

You are spot on, Mark. I have never owned a 12-24mm - I have one on long term loan at the moment, but before this Autumn I have always relied on borrowing one from friends for dives.

The other fact is the 17-35mm is an awesome lens and while the 12-24mm covers the same range in DX it is not in the same league when it comes to optical quality. So while I never regretted putting the 17-35mm because the slides were always so sharp and rich in colour, I don't have the same confidence in the 12-24 (although as I use it more so it is growing). Optically I favour the 16mm on the DX cameras, instead of the 12-24mm, it is more compact, has better corners, but can't zoom.

I would also add that the nature of this project is very general UW stuff and therefore requires plenty of WA shots.

Last week I sent a set of 67 shots off for something to do with fish. And the bias was v different:

10.5 - 6%

16 - 9%

12-24 - 3%

17-35 - 6%

28-70 - 19%

60 - 15%

105 - 42%

I am actually finding doing these stats on my own images quite educational.

Alex

The lens you use probably depends very much on your interests (and if appropriate, market). I shoot predominantly natural history in temperate waters so the mainstay when I shot Nikon/Fuji was the 60mm micro - a superb lens. Now I use more of a mix of 100 and 50 macros from Canon on FF - perhaps using the 100 a bit more than the 50, and this is probably due to its superb focus even in less than ideal conditions.

I very, very rarely shoot wider than 20 although I do own a 15 fisheye so I could do so. I'm tempted by a 35/1.4 which could be a lot of fun......

I use the 12-24 when I'm not sure what I'm going to encounter and want to cover my bases. It worked great with great whites at Guadalupe; used it exclusively there. Excellent big critter lens when the critters won't put their eyeball right on it.

My present lens uw collection:

10.5 fisheye

12-24

60mm macro

105mm macro

Topside also includes 24-120, 70-200, 2x teleconverter

Eric

www.ehanauer.com

10.5 all the way. ca 80 % off my shots are with this lens. Why becauce off the dramatic the wide angle and the posability to tell a story with the lens

I have use 16mm but only with my 10.5 I see the dramatic off freediving. The 16mm is better for documentary and portait shots.

Give me a D2X and a 10,5 and I would be king :-)