lens options

guys i am considering many lenses but since this will be my first slr i am going to have to make a small compromise. i will defintely have to make do with my land lenses for uw and not vice versa. since i have a limited budget, im considering the 17-55mm or 60mm macro and 18-200mmvr.

the 17-55 is great on land and do-able uw. option two is 60mm macro, great on land and uw while the 18-200 is only for land. please give me advice as i dont want to have buyers regret. budget about $1300 for lenses thanks

I'd definitly go with he 60mm macro for underwater. The 17-55 is more of a niche lens for UW. Good for special circumstances but not a lens most people would use day in and day out. I'm not sure what your topside requirements are but if it was me, I'd go for the 17-55 and the 60. You can probably get both if you stretch your budget just a bit.

I'd definitly go with he 60mm macro for underwater. The 17-55 is more of a niche lens for UW. Good for special circumstances but not a lens most people would use day in and day out. I'm not sure what your topside requirements are but if it was me, I'd go for the 17-55 and the 60. You can probably get both if you stretch your budget just a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

for topside i would just want an overall lens that would work. im getting my first slr and the 18-200vr for eveything unforyunalely it cant be used uw. the 17-55 would be good topside but mediocre uw. im thinking 18-200 top and 60mm starter uw lens

I've just started using the 17-55mm with my Nexus D70. I find it to be a great general purpose lens for underwater. A very useable zoom range when you don't know exactly what to expect on a dive. If I know for sure that I want to shoot only WA or macro, I also have the 12-24, 60 & 105mm. It took awhile to find the best setup for the 17-55, but I see using it quite often. Its also my normal topside lens. The only downside I see is the price.

I've just started using the 17-55mm with my Nexus D70.  I find it to be a great general purpose lens for underwater.  A very useable zoom range when you don't know exactly what to expect on a dive.  If I know for sure that I want to shoot only WA or macro, I also have the 12-24, 60 & 105mm.  It took awhile to find the best setup for the 17-55, but I see using it quite often.  Its also my normal topside lens.  The only downside I see is the price.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how does it perform topside? any limitations?

If I had to choose only one lens for underwater, it would be the Nikon 10.5mm. And, in fact, that's all I use these days. However, excluding wide angle, 60mm would be my second choice.

Sample pictures here.

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall...ple_gallery.htm

It seems to me from covering the various threads on Nikon Lenses for underwater use, the 4 lenses that would cover everything in order of importance relative to budget would be the 12-24, 60mm macro, 10.5 FE and 105 macro

Jeff

If I had to choose only one lens for underwater, it would be the Nikon 10.5mm. And, in fact, that's all I use these days. However, excluding wide angle, 60mm would be my second choice.

 

Sample pictures here.

 

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall...ple_gallery.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree am actually considering the 10.5 fisheye but will get it when the hosuing is a done deal. wont be using the fisheye on land anyway unless i get the rectilinear software. 60mm is also a done deal

i agree am actually considering the 10.5 fisheye but will get it when the hosuing is a done deal. wont be using the fisheye on land anyway unless i get the rectilinear software. 60mm is also a done deal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 10.5 is not a very versatile lens on land but I use it from time to time and really love the effects of it.

For Lens-Correction software see this thread.

I now use only the 10.5, 17-55 and 70-180

If it is an unkown dive site with a bright sunny day I use the 10.5 if it's a bit overcast I will use the 17-55.

I have a 105mm,60mm and 12-24DX gathering dust.

Except for macro, the original lens list at the beginning of the thread is a poor choice underwater. If scenic shots are what you want, reefs, wrecks or divers, then you have to look at wider lenses.

The love-hate divide around the Nikon 12-24mm is documented all over the web, but everyone who uses it loves the 10.5mm. One money-saving option is to buy a Magic filter and not a second strobe, and use the 10.5mm in ambient light down to 45-50 feet.

The port is another issue, but having a DSLR with only a flat port makes no sense, unless you are absurdly fond of close-up and macro images. Underwater photographers love macro images, but the rest of the world seems to prefer scenic wide-angles.

A used 16mm is an option, with about 90 degrees of coverage, but the lens seems less forgiving of dome choice, and has a funny optical arrangement with a rear filter that seems optically necessary on the surface, but only with some domes underwater: I've tried it with focussing problems on some occasions. The big advantage is that DSLR users are sometimes selling this lens on and buying the 10.5mm.

Tim

B)

The 10.5mm is a massively important lens for underwater photography. Indeed underwater photography just wouldn't be underwater photography without it! But I don't think that it should be your first choice UW. It can be hard to get going on and you could find it a frustrating place to start.

Alex

The 18-200 is a great topside walkaround lens.

SD

If I had to choose only one lens for underwater, it would be the Nikon 10.5mm. And, in fact, that's all I use these days. However, excluding wide angle, 60mm would be my second choice.

 

Sample pictures here.

 

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall...ple_gallery.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

question about the 10.5mm shots -- are those corrected for the fisheye distortion via software (Nikon capture et al) or is the perspective how they come out of the camera?

thx in advance

Paul

question about the 10.5mm shots -- are those corrected for the fisheye distortion via software (Nikon capture et al)  or is the perspective how they come out of the camera?

 

thx in advance

 

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if i am not mistaken those are not corrected pictures. uw the fisheye seems to shine whereas on land its another story

if i am not mistaken those are not corrected pictures. uw the fisheye seems to shine whereas on land its another story

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...if that is true, then Nikon just sold a 10.5 mm to this old wreck diver who is about to go digital ;-)

Re "question about the 10.5mm shots -- are those corrected for the fisheye distortion via software (Nikon capture et al) or is the perspective how they come out of the camera?"

They are not corrected. But some of them are cropped and I don't remember which ones.

As for distortion, I only find it to be a problem where there are straight lines and then I sometimes correct for distortion. But not always.

http://www.splashdowndivers.com/photo_gall..._wide_angle.htm

Spoon, just wanted to pass this on because I've seen your posts re: lens selection angst, at SB.

I've used the 18-200 VR as a topside lens, and it has no home in my bag. In fact, there are shooters I work with that laughed out loud after using it. Hideously slow, soft and distortive at extremes, prone to damage.

Of course, my needs certainlyare not yours! I just wanted to pass on a disenting voice before everyone jumps on the 18-200 lovefest wagon, and make you aware there are real engineering comprimises.

Every tool is a balance of strengths. For example, if I were very, very weight restricted, like trekking in Nepal, I'd probabally have one.

All the best, James

Spoon, just wanted to pass this on because I've seen your posts re: lens selection angst, at SB.

 

I've used the 18-200 VR as a topside lens, and it has no home in my bag. In fact, there are shooters I work with that laughed out loud after using it. Hideously slow, soft and distortive at extremes, prone to damage.

 

Of course, my needs certainlyare not yours! I just wanted to pass on a disenting voice before everyone jumps on the 18-200 lovefest wagon, and make you aware there are real engineering comprimises.

 

Every tool is a balance of strengths. For example, if I were very, very weight restricted, like trekking in Nepal, I'd probabally have one.

 

All the best, James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks a lot james, much appreciated. there are pretty much mixed reviews on this lens. i am no pro nor do i aspire to be one. i can only say that if i get the 18-200vr it is only becasue i need an all around lens to learn with. i like the range. was thinking of getting the awesome 17-55 but seems a bit limited for my needs. remember i know nothing of slrs.