10-22, 16-35 or 17-40

as you are considering ultra wide (weitwinkel) angle for an aps-c sensor you might want to consider the new tokina 10-17mm dx fisheye that is just coming out canon mounts. it is a lot wider than the 10-22 and minimum focus distance is 14cm as opposed to 24cm for the 10-22.

i don't know how good or not good it is, but it is in the 550usd range so you might want to add to your list of potentials.

now that i have thrown a spanner in works

/paul

Erick,

 

I'm going to be shooting the 30D/10-22/Aquatica housing over the next 3 weeks, I'll let you know how things work out when I return.

 

In regards to research, don't forget to explore the different ports for each of the housings and which lenses are supported.

 

I read an interesting article a few years back on what the pros shoot, although dated, it might provide some insight for housings/gear set-up.

-Jim

Hey Jim,

That was an interesting article. I even noticed that the 17-40 was recommended by Stephen if he was restricted to "one lens" While a couple others used the 16-35. Then, even though the ff cameras that they all use get more out of the wide angle aspect of the lenses, most also had a 12-24 in their lens list. (revisiting the original question of my thread) I think that they all had a 10.5mm, 15mm or 16mm fisheye. I wonder if any of the pros will opt for the new Tokina 10-17mm fisheye to get some flexibility within that range, or if they will all just stick with the fixed lenses? They also had many small primes, which I intend on researching as part of camera accessories phase two... in about a year. As expected, Ikelite was not a favourite housing, but they did seem to like the strobes offered by Ikelite. I imagine that the housings that they choose cost a fortune and I don't think I'm ready to try and jump into their league, by any means, so when the time comes I think that I will try to keep the cost of my initial housing, ports and strobe needs within the $2000-$3000 range, although I will maintain some flexibility in the event that I can recognize a significant jump in operational capabilities at a marginal price increase, so, again when the time comes I won't make that $3000 ceiling too rigid if I can justify the increase... Much like I have already done with choosing my camera and lenses so far! I think that when it is all added up I will have already have broken my budget by about $1000... another reason why I'm not willing to move up to the 5D at this juncture.

Again, thanks for the article.

Erick

as you are considering ultra wide (weitwinkel) angle for an aps-c sensor you might want to consider the new tokina 10-17mm dx fisheye that is just coming out canon mounts. it is a lot wider than the 10-22 and minimum focus distance is 14cm as opposed to 24cm for the 10-22.

 

i don't know how good or not good it is, but it is in the 550usd range so you might want to add to your list of potentials.

 

now that i have thrown a spanner in works

/paul

Hey Paul,

I have already been trying to wiggle that spanner loose!

I saw the thread, and followed the links, for that 10-17 fisheye lens. It is a very intriguing lens, especially for underwater use, but I think that it might be a bit too much of an "extreme"... yet fun lens, for use above the waves. It is definitely on my list of lenses to get as I gear up more towards underwater photography, but I think that for the time being I'm going to learn on the 10-22 for my Ultra WA, before I start bending light to do 180s! You can see on my previous thread that I was questioning if this lens was a good option for the pros, or if they'd sooner stick with their fixed fisheyes? Over the next year if that lens gets some good reviews from underwater pros, it will definitely become one at the top of my list.

Thanks for the spanner,

Erick

Erick,

 

I'm going to be shooting the 30D/10-22/Aquatica housing over the next 3 weeks, I'll let you know how things work out when I return.

 

In regards to research, don't forget to explore the different ports for each of the housings and which lenses are supported.

 

I read an interesting article a few years back on what the pros shoot, although dated, it might provide some insight for housings/gear set-up.

-Jim

Jim - The article you referenced is from 2004, and clearly lots has changed in terms of digital tools since then. Here is the 2006 update:

http://stephenfrink.com/sf-tips/200608-what-the-pros-shoot/

Another article relevant to the original question is at http://www.seacamusa.com/lens-testing.shtml

In particular, how very important it is to choose the exact right port extension per dome, and why compact domes are not the best solution for every lens. With any system with multiple domes and port extensions in-water testing seems to be better than theoretical calculations. Note also that using diopters in search of corner resolution is not without cost ... namely depth of field for distant subjects (not an uncommon scenario for wide lens use UW) and wide coverage. In the test reference in the link above, adding the diopters demonstrated less wide angle coverage.

My conclusion was that the diopter was a special tool, necessary for some lenses and some ports, preferred for others. But not a panacea. For example, with my 17-40 on a full frame 1DsMKII, if I was shooting a model in the far distance with soft coral foreground, I would use a superdome (9") and a PVL30 port extension, no diopter at all. But, if I was shooting that same soft coral but the composition now was more about subjects along the same plane, say soft coral and anthias, I'd opt for a +2 diopter. And, if the anthias were meant to be more compositionally important than the soft coral, I might opt for a +4 diopter. Good testing will help determine what to use when.

I call it "predictive previsualization", knowing enough about what's down there to set up the right tool to best capture the highest probability significant images.

Jim - The article you referenced is from 2004, and clearly lots has changed in terms of digital tools since then. Here is the 2006 update:

 

http://stephenfrink.com/sf-tips/200608-what-the-pros-shoot/

 

Another article relevant to the original question is at http://www.seacamusa.com/lens-testing.shtml

Thanks so much Stephen,

I found your updated article for what the pros use very useful. And your article that outlined the premium gear specifications depending on which lens you were to choose is very interesting as well. I like the analytical side to it, not quite as speculative as the "pros" choices. Now it would be nice to think that one day I would have the Seacam housing and ports to make use of this data, but I fear that I'm going to end up geting something more on the consumer level seeing as I'm not a pro and don't know if I could ever work the Seacam housing into my budget? Is there any such compolation of similiar data for Aquatica or Ikelite housings with this same list of lenses? Or perhaps if you are still feeling scientific, you can borrow those housings as well and create complete data tables for all housings/ports... and camera bodies, if you were feeling particularily benevolent and wanted to create an amazing resource for the photographic diving community. I have a feeling that your primary concern was for your own knowledge though, and not mine and others in my shoes. So I'll have to start saving!

Thanks again,

Erick