What Lens to get for Nikon D-200?

What lens should I get for a Nikon D-200 in a Nexus Housing besides a 60mm macro lens. I am moving up from an Olympus 7070 in an Ikelite housing.

I would recommend the Nikkor 12-24mm. Very versatile W/A lens to compliment your macro.

how about the new Tokina 10-17mm fish eye zoom....

how about the new Tokina 10-17mm fish eye zoom....

or the sigma 10-20

or the sigma 10-20

What about in between macro and wide angle. What about the Nikon DX 18-70 or 18-135?

What about in between macro and wide angle. What about the Nikon DX 18-70 or 18-135?

Or the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO, which has very good close focus ability and goes mid-wide. It does extend quite far when zoomed to 70, so you would have to check it fitting in your housing/port combo. Also don't forget to check if your housing manufacturer makes a zoom gear for the lens you choose.

Here's a link to the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM also.

here is some wetpixel 10-20 discussion and also here and here too.

17-70 discussion and sample pics at the end of this post and also talk here

cheers

darren

I choose the Nikon 17-55.

It is great on the surface and I liked it also underwater. you have some zoom range, ofcourse for the special makro of wide angle stuff you will need other lenses, but I like it as an overall lens.

For the moment I have only one lens and the 17-55 does the job!

If you want Nikon glass, I agree with Sven. Even though I have multiple lenses, if I had to have only one, the 17-55 would be my choice. Fast, (very important for auto-focus under water)and sharp - the best general purpose lens I have for topside and underwater. I have no experience with other brands.

Does the chubby 17-55mm fit in Ikelite's ports? I am sure it does - but thought it was worth checking.

Alex

Good point; worth checking. It's a tight fit with the Subal, I think I have to remove the lens with the lens release button from outside when using it.

I'm a little surprised by the emphasis on zooms, above. We all know these are harder to optimize behind a dome.

I've yet to use my zooms underwater, but some here have had great results with them. I have used 10.5FE, 16FE, and 20. So take this with a grain of salt; I am not a zoom fan.

All around, the 16FE is sharper and as fast or faster than any of the other lenses, and its FOV isn't that much less than the (relatively soft) wide end of the Nikon 12-24. The distortion is moderate and generally acceptable on the DX sensor, except for shots of manmade objects or very close shots of faces (as long as faces aren't near the edge of the frame). Its focus is noticeably faster and surer on my D70, in poor light on land, compared to my Sigma 10-20 (even though the sigma is HSM).

It's cheaper than many of the alternatives discussed, and also cheaper to house -- usually no extensions, and no zoom ring.

You can find them minty used for like $500, and the Sigma 15 is about that price new and is also very good.

So, let's see: sharper, faster, more compact, cheaper. And your choice for a good starter lens is....?

Added: and there is no listed compatible Ikelite port for the 17-55 or supporting zoom on the Sigma 10-20, last I checked (which is part of my motivation for moving to the Subal ND70 -- I'm not totally down on zooms, just don't see them as the place to start a system).

I think this is a reasonable point. One could get a 16mm and a 60mm macro for the same price or less than a 17-55. But you would need two ports. If you want to use the setup topside though, then I would still go back to the idea of a zoom.

I think Chris make a good point. Why all the emphasis on zooms? I guess because they're new and sexy. There are four lenses that are pretty much established as a universally accepted set:

60mm macro

105 macro

16mm FE (Nikon) or 15mm FE(Sigma)

10.5 mm FE

I would fill in the blanks on this set before I started experimenting with zooms.

I think Chris make a good point. Why all the emphasis on zooms? I guess because they're new and sexy. There are four lenses that are pretty much established as a universally accepted set:

60mm macro

105 macro

16mm FE (Nikon) or 15mm FE(Sigma)

10.5 mm FE

I would fill in the blanks on this set before I started experimenting with zooms.

This sounds about right. I have the 105 and the 16 FE. Most of my shots are with the latter. The distortion isn't so bad and it's sharp - even in the corners. Unless you absolutely need straight lights like for wreck photography I'd go with the 16 FE instead of of the 12-24. The 12-24 is probably more useful on land but under a dome the prime FE is probably what you want.

Clinton

The 12-24 is probably more useful on land but under a dome the prime FE is probably what you want.

I agree with the FE being less useful on land. But I don't have the 12-24, and don't want it.

Above water, I have never regretted saving money and going wider by going with the Sigma 10-20 rather than the Nikon 12-24 (okay, I hate the Sigma's 72mm filter size, but that's minor). In my opinion, the 12-24 is simply not in the same league as the 17-55 and 70-200 f2.8's (both of which I shoot extensively supra aqua). I'll save my money until Nikon offer an f2.8 superwide zoom or a 2.8 or faster, sub 12mm prime. For quality products with those specs, I would hesitate but then eventually shell out the bucks.

And you could get a Sigma 15FE and a Sigma 10-20 for not much more than the cost of the Nikon 12-24 (like, 1050 vs 900). I seldom choose Sigma glass over Nikon, but in this case the Nikon glass doesn't seem to me to justify its premium price.

Just my way of thinking.

All the best,

Chris in Red Stick

Why zooms? Because you can't change lenses UW. I have and a have used the 17-55. A great lens and good UW; but not as good as the 12-24 for most wide angle shots. Only for small reef shots and animials is it better. Not as good as the 60 for small stuff as will not do macro.

My rig would be the 12-24 and the 60. After that the 10.5X, then the 17-55, and then the 105 micro.

Why zooms? Because you can't change lenses UW. I have and a have used the 17-55. A great lens and good UW; but not as good as the 12-24 for most wide angle shots. Only for small reef shots and animials is it better. Not as good as the 60 for small stuff as will not do macro.

 

My rig would be the 12-24 and the 60. After that the 10.5X, then the 17-55, and then the 105 micro.

What do you guys think about the Nikkor DX 18-70mm? I have this lens already for shooting topside and want to use it underwater.

I hope based on all this you could make a choise, based on your personal preferences and your budget.

I wanted to add, as pointed out by Alex above, that is is important to check that the lens fits the port.

As for my experience with the Nikkor 17-55 and the Subal dome port with 7mm extention ring: the lens did not pass trough the extention ring. Fortunately the shop where I bought my house (MES in Belgium) could adapt the ring by removing a tiny mm from the inside diameter and everything is ok now.

As for my experience with the Nikkor 17-55 and the Subal dome port with 7mm extention ring: the lens did not pass trough the extention ring. Fortunately the shop where I bought my house (MES in Belgium) could adapt the ring by removing a tiny mm from the inside diameter and everything is ok now.

The instructions say that the 17-55 has to be mounted after you install the camera and extension ring on the Subal housing. So, instead of modifying your extension ring you should do this:

1) Mount the camera (with no lens) in the housing and close it.

2) Install the extension ring.

3) Mount the lens through the extension ring.

4) Mount the dome port.

That's what I do with mine and I never had any problem...

Luiz

P.S.: By the way, the 17-55 does not fit in Ikelite ports, according to their website "Lens diameter is too large to operate in port system":

http://ikelite.com/web_pages/2port_nikon.html

I'm pretty much in the same boat with my new D80 system.

Have the sigma 1-70 as a G.P. lens and am mostly happy with it. Plan on next getting the Nikon 60mm macro.

Read with interest on the primes mentioned above. How would you rate the Nikon 16mm against the Sigma 15mm FE?

The Sigma 10-20 has been getting a lot of good comments and it would be a useful lens for my real estate photos, etc above water. My budget somewhat dictates that I get as most usefulness of my lens purchases.

Jack