D100 W/A choices

I have just upgraded to a D100 in a L&M Titan housing, and I'm looking for suggestions for a good W/A setup. Someone has suggested the Subal DP-FE2 port with the 10.5mm fisheye lens. Any opinions or other combinations?

I'm not new to U/W digital, but i've moved up to the D100 from a Coolpix 5000 and I'm not very familiar with all the lens, port and gear options so any help is really appreciated.

Michael

Hi Michael,

Check this topic for a lot of information about this:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10569

While I like my 10.5 it is a very big lens to fill and challenging to light. IMHO something a bit less wide and rectiliniar would be easier to start with Something like the 12 - 24 (zoom is good for versatility).

While I like my 10.5 it is a very big lens to fill and challenging to light. IMHO something a bit less wide and rectiliniar would be easier to start with Something like the 12 - 24 (zoom is good for versatility).

Yeah, I agree with Lndr (I still havn't made it to Jervis Bay: shame on me!) start with a 12-24 using the Subal DP-FE2 port and gear ring (which makes the zoom work). If that works well, take a look at the 10.5 which, I agree, is harder to use but can produce some spectacular results. That uses the DP-FE2 too without an extension ring and no gears. So one port, two lenses.

I have to disagree with the difficulty issue about the 10.5 that mantion here from time to time, its sure more challenged lens from the less wide ones but its not so bad <_<

From the beginning I almost didn't took pictures of my fins as I supposed to B), it's happens only when I'm doing some strange positions in the water trying to take difficult frames.

Its sure more challenging to fill and light as mentioned but a little practice and it can be done spectacular results that the 12-24 can't do.

Of course this lens is good only for really wide angle shots and you have to check if it’s fit your needs.

I have to disagree with the difficulty issue about the 10.5 that mantion here from time to time, its sure more challenged lens from the less wide ones but its not so bad <_<

From the beginning I almost didn't took pictures of my fins as I supposed to B), it's happens only when I'm doing some strange positions in the water trying to take difficult frames.

Its sure more challenging to fill and light as mentioned but a little practice and it can be done spectacular results that the 12-24 can't do.

When I said challenging I was thinking of the lighting and finding a suitable (big, close) subject, rather than keeping yourself out of the frame

Of course this lens is good only for really wide angle shots and you have to check if it’s fit your needs.

Definitely. And the 10.5 is good, but you can still get the big scenic wide angle with a 12-24, plus you can shoot the medim - large fish. Plus you don't have to be so careful about where other divers are in your shots.

The fact you could add the 10.5 to your aresenal with the same port as a 12-24 I think adds more weight to the plus side of a 12-24. I started with a medium wide angle back in the film days, and loved it. While the fisheye adds to my kit - it isn't the only wide angle lens I'd like to have.

Ah Tim, you haven't realised what you are missing in JB ... green, cold, and chunky now though

Michael,

Remember to factor the cost of the port adaptor ring into whatever option you consider - it could make a cheap port not as cost effective as you had hoped.

FWIW - Light & Motion have a new dome that is compatible with the 10.5 , in fact it has been developed specifically for it.

The 10.5 is awesome and not all that expensive compared to some quality zooms. I love the 17-55dx which is a great uw lens but costs a lot more than your camera but would be a good investment for future camera bodies. The 10.5 is easy as in set it and forget it, it is a prime lens so you don't have to zoom, has great depth of field so you don't have to fiddle with it so much, it is awsome for natural light WA and the only thing to use if you like over and unders. The lighting is the real challenge must have a dual strobe setup for sure. Depending on your budget I would go 10.5 and 17-55dx or 17-35 if you can get one cheap. I had some WA experience before making my choice, I decided to pass on the 12-24 for that reason. If you need to you can adjust the 10.5 in PS for less curve distortion in the corners. I heard sigma has a nice 10 to something lens (10-18 or something ???) you might want to check out reviews on that.

Thanks for all the tips. Seems to me that since I'm just starting with this camera it might be best to start off with the 12-24, and then move up to the 10.5 later on. It's funny because I just picked up a 12-24 zoom gear for my housing on e-bay figuring someday I might need it.

I also have the Subal adapter ring fro my housing, so if anyone has a DP-FE2 dome port for sale please let me know or any other dome I could use with my setup.

Again, thanks for your help.

Thanks for all the tips. Seems to me that since I'm just starting with this camera it might be best to start off with the 12-24, and then move up to the 10.5 later on. It's funny because I just picked up a 12-24 zoom gear for my housing on e-bay figuring someday I might need it.

 

I also have the Subal adapter ring fro my housing, so if anyone has a DP-FE2 dome port for sale please let me know or any other dome I could use with my setup.

 

Again, thanks for your help.

Depending on the subal ports (which I don't know), it might be cheaper, easier (no zooming), and better (sharper, faster) to go with a 10.5 PLUS a Sigma 15 FE or a (used) Nikon 16 FE -- the two longer lenses are full-frame fisheyes, but show only moderate distortion on the DX sensor, and are very good optically.