Best Overall Lens For New Camera

I am close to pulling the trigger on a new D70s and I would like advice on the right package to purchase, including a lens. I am more excited by big animals (sharks, mantas, etc.) than the small stuff. It would be great to have a nice versatile lens that would be good for top-side shots as well. I read a post suggesting the 17-55 lens.

I would recommend any suggestions anyone may have.

Also, what other things should I look for in the camera package? Please let me know. Thanks!

Jay

My vote would be the 12-24 if I only had one lens.

12-24mm as well, i had the 10.5mm and it really is not a good top side lens.

i wanted a minimalistic approach to my gear because of traveling involved with this hobby.

I have heard that the 12-24 is a superb lens, thank you both. But VERY pricey! What would your second choice be -- one that perhaps would not break the bank?

the tokina 12-24mm is what i have and it was $440

Ooh, I never considered a non-Nikon lens option. That opens up a whole new discussion. How does the Tokina compare with the Nikon?

Wolf Eel, I notice you use two strobes. Is that essential? Can I get away with one? I am buying everything at once and I'm trying to keep my costs as manageable as possible.

My vote would be for the Nikkor 12-24 as well. Its expensive but is an excellent lens - for topside too.

Its hard to light an area as wide as the 12-24 will cover with only one strobe. Although a Magic Filter (from Alex Mustard) might do the trick instead of a strobe.

I started out with one strobe. It was OK for wide angle, but when I took macro shots I missed not having the other strobe to fill in shadows.

For a good general purpose lens above and below water check out the recently released Sigma 17-70 macro. Here's a review:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/si..._2845/index.htm

and here's my thoughts on it after my first couple of dives with it;

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.p...;threadid=19103

BTW I also have the Tokina 12-24 and am very happy with it.

I also have the nikkor 12-24mm, but what does everyone think about the Sigma 10-20?

Consensus seems to be that 10-20 isn't quite as nice as Tokina, but is does have the advantage of being ever so slightly wider.

I'd be more inclined to go with the Tokina if anything, but my Nikkor has really served me well.

Thank you everyone for your helpful posts!

Gudge,

Which lens would you choose if you had to choose just one for both underwater and top-side: the Sigma 17-70 macro or the Tokina 12-24? Please share your thoughts with me. Thanks!

Jay

That's a very personal question Jay! It really depends on the way you shoot. I really like wide angle both underwater and topside, so for me it would be the 12-24, but ultimately the 17-70 is a pretty versatile lens topside. Having the moderately wide angle combined with macro and portrait focal lengths is very appealing. Only you can really decide on this, but 17 isn't really wide enough for most wide angle stuff UW IMHO. It is ok for fish portraits etc, but not for full diver portraits.

Gudge,

 

Which lens would you choose if you had to choose just one for both underwater and top-side: the Sigma 17-70 macro or the Tokina 12-24?  Please share your thoughts with me.  Thanks!

 

Jay

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Out of those two, for BOTH topside and underwater it would have to be the Sigma 17-70. I do very little land wide angle stuff on land and underwater I do a lot of fish portraits for which the 17-70 is ideal. I'd still have to have my Tamron 90mm macro lens for the really small and/or skittish stuff though.

17-70 on land for sure

12-24 or 10-20 underwatetr.

Hell, leverage your house and get both

I agree with Joe as well. 17-70 would be much more "usable" as a day to day lens on land. That said, I love my 12-24, and would not give it up. Also, underwater it has a great range as well as awesome optics.

if only someone made a 12-70 lens....

if only someone made a 12-70 lens....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...2.8, macro of course...

I'll put in a vote for the 10-20.

I was going to buy a Tamron 12-24/4, but in the end opted for the Sigma 10-20 instead. An extra 2mm on the wide end (effectively 3mm after the crop factor) makes a *huge* difference in wide angle.

I dont know about relative sharpness, but I own a fair bit of well-respected glass and so know what sharp is - and this lens is sharp enough. To me, the extra 2mm is a far bigger deal than any supposed performance benefits of the 12-24. Now, perhaps a comparison with the Canon 10-22 might be more appropriate.

Vandit