Nikon DSLR lens choice

Yep, 10.5mm of all the shots published this year I have a 95% ratio of 10.5mm including 2 front page and 2 double page spread. the lens has kick, but it bites also, I've had my share of strobe showing off in the corner well I guess score one more for digital, yuo can correct these mishap while still wet

Cheers

P.S. Mike you got an Amphibico Phenom ! Dude, that's nice.

P.S. Mike you got an Amphibico Phenom ! Dude, that's nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Want to help me pay the Royal Bank for my Visa payments?!

Naw, i'm in debt enough as it is from working in a camera store and with Aquatica lord its expensive to work sometime

Cheers buddy

We shoot with:

10.5

12-24

60 micro

105 micro

In film days, most w/a was Nik 15mm and some 20mm.

Must say that the 10.5 was a revelation when we started using it and although you must be careful, it delivers geast results.

Haven't used the 12-24 enough to judge it on fair grounds but its performance at 12mm behind Aquatica's 8" dome was more than pleasing, even when compared to some of our scanned Nik 15mm shots.

Form macro 60mm has been our tool of choice althought for fish portraits, especailly full body shots of larger specimens like groupers and the like, we will be experimenting with our 35mm f/2, which, in film days, was an outstanding housed lens.

Hi Jett, good to hear from you

MIchel

Bonjour, Michel,

I have ben lurking at Wetpixel for some time....so perhaps time it is time that I contributed some comments. Hope all is well with you and Danielle.

Best regards, Jett

Has anyone tried the Tamron SP 11-18mm ?

I bought the Nikon 10.5 mm but sent it back because it was physically to short and vignetted in the housing I built.

I really wanted to shoot those half under and over shots and the Tamron has the dimensions I need . Minimum focus on the Tamron is 9.8 inches.

Marc

I mostly shoot with the 12-24 and the 60 mm micro. They are the most versatile lenses. I also shoot the the 10.5 and the 105 mm micro. Those two lenses as mentioned above give you the best shots at respectively macro and wide angle.

12-24

10.5

60

105

For land use I shoot the 17-55. I bring an extension ring as there are times when this can be a good lens. Such as small to medium size fish or wild life.

This is turning into an interesting thread. Rather than the normal what lenses do you reccommend, it is a real life "the lenses I use" discussion. Quite a different perspective. Although I started this discussion as a Nikon thread it would be good to hear what Canon users favour too.

Alex

Ok, I didn't contribute before, so here it goes. For wide angle I use the 10.5 almost exclusively, when I am expecting big fish that don't come too close to the camera I use the 16 fisheye. For macro and small fish I've been using the 105 micro, and for medium to large fish the 60 micro. To my taste, the best shots were produced with either the 10.5 or the 105. Unfortunately, I don't sell that much images to check which ones sell the most.

I have a 17-55 which is awesome on land, and I plan to use it UW soon, but I don't expect to use it as much as the ones mentioned above.

Luiz

Well, I guess I'll fess up to NOT being a wide-angle fan. One reason is because everybody does it, and I guess I'm looking for something "different". And I especially enjoy shooting macro and what I call micro-marco (105mm with a +4 CU lens screwed in).

When I was shooting with my N90, my favorite lenses were:

28-105mm (shots down to 1:2 in macro at 105)

105mm

18-35mm (which I'm actually not too crazy about)

With my D70 (Ikelite housing, dual SB-105 strobes), it's a little trickier:

18-70mm DX (seems to be an okay choice)

28-105mm (still like it but it's effectively a 42 on the "wide" end)

105mm (but boy is it hard to shoot in surge with that thing!!!!)

105mm with a +4 diopter on it (liked my results on Baja Barnacle Blennies)

Why can't someone just come up with a nice 8-200mm macro zoom that shoots 2:1 at the top end and that costs under $500? Is that asking too much?????

You can see some of the stuff I've shot with these combos (Indo 2005, Kona 2005, and Baja 2005 are digital; SoCal General is a mix; others are film) at Reef Seekers Picture Page.

Ken Kurtis!!?!?!?!??!

Good to see you on here!

Gotten lost lately?

Ooo, those Canucks are looking good lately, nevermind the Kings game, they beat the Ducks....

Mike asked: "Gotten lost lately?"

Now Mike, let's remember that there's a difference bewteen me being lost and you not being able to find me even though I could clearly see you. And we won't even go into how you were within 50 yards of me, looked right at and through me, and then turned around and went the other way.

Besides, I had my trusty SB-105s with me. Once it got dark, all I had to do was turn them into flash/strobe mode so that you guys could have easily spotted me and most likely have gone, "Hey, look over there. That must be Ken. Why doesn't someone go get him . . . once we're all done with dessert of course."

Re-read my Nov 17 post and found out that I was either:

a) drunk;

B) trying to write as bad with a keyboard as I do when handwriting;

c) in a hurry to finish my post to drink another beer;

d) all of the above!

Millions of apologies for my poor rendition of the proper spelling of nice English words. I guess I have too many thumbs :-)

Happy bubbles,

Michel

PS: Jett, Dan is fine and we're looking forward to reading more from you in the forums; gotta share that expertise.

I really like to start off a dive trip with the 60mm. In the Subal housing it doesn't feel so much to handle as a wide-angle port. Once I am comfortable with the dive environment I will bring in my trusty Nikkor 12-24 - which I really like; and then the 10.5 - especially on wall dives.

Again, once I'm happy with the environment I might also try an 18-70. But, I'm not sure why yet, I never feel quite as happy with it as the other lenses - although the results are usually pretty pleasing.

I can feel a 105mm coming on.......