Best lenses for Lembeh and Raja Ampat?

Couldn't decide whether to put this here or in the trips section. I'm planning my dream trip to Indonesia this fall, and upgrading to a housed D80 for the trip. Trying to figure out the best 2-lens combo to bring along. Here's my thinking so far:

In Lembeh, I assume I'll be muck-diving and shooting macro most of the time. I own the 105mm macro, but I'm a little worried about the viz in all that muck - am I going to wish I had the 60 instead? Should I bite the bullet and bring both?

Wide-angle: what sort of wide-angle shots can I expect in either place? Raja looks like it's more of a wide-angle spot, with a better mix of reefscapes, pelagics, and schooling fish. The 18-70 kit lens is currently the widest thing in my bag. Can I get away with it, or do I need to go invest in a 12-24 or other super-wide?

Any other thoughts on shouldn't miss shots in these spots from those who've been there are welcome.

Thanks,

Tim

I dove these areas this past Oct/Nov. In Lembeh I used the 60 & 105. Vis isn't great but usually good enough for the 105, which is a better choice for the really small stuff (like pygmy seahorses). I find that for a subject larger than about 3" I wish I had the 60. For Raja Ampat I used mostly my 17-55. We dove a couple of mucky area where I changed to the 60 & 105. Saw lots of schooling fish but not many pelagics. I think the 12-24 is too wide for RA in general. For WA shots 17-20 range on my zoom worked great. Take your 18-70, 60 & 105. If you don't have the 60, buy it - its not very expensive compared to your D80 system & cost of trip. And make sure you're covered for spares. I had 2 of my 3 strobes fail on my trip. Fortunately I was able to get another one in Bali for the end of my trip there.

P.S. RA is current diving most of the time. Keep the reef in sight. Drifting in open water is not a good thing.

P.P.S. I usually use AF on the 105 since its alot more accurate than my eyesight. On every dive there were a couple of things that AF had a hard time with. When I got home I bought the new 105VR which has AF with manual over-ride. No camera or lens controls required to change from AF to M.

I have been to RA twice, and Lembeh once. My photos are on the website with exif data. I would take the 60, 105, 16 (or 10.5). I brought a zoom, and never used it.

Hal

For Lembeh use 60, for Raja I use 17-35 Zoom and Nik 15 and also a 105. (Film base)

Based on 6 trips to Lebmeh and 3 to Raja

In Lembeh I would pick up the 60mm first.

In RA I would use the 10.5mm for wide angle. RA probably has the best reefs in the world - and the 10.5mm is the way to shoot them.

In RA there is so much else to shoot though. 105mm for fish and macro. And a mid-range zoom can be nice for wobbegongs and other larger creatures.

Alex

Personally I would use many more lenses - to generate as wide a variety of images as possible. In RA recently I used 10.5mm, 16mm, 12-24mm, 17-55mm, 28-70mm, 60mm, 105mm, 150mm + 10.5mm with TC and 105mm and 150mm with dioptres.

I agree with Alex.

The wider the better. There was current in RA when I was there but in general I did not find it was an issue. May have been the proper timing by the boat to the exchanges. I also take every lens I can. I like to try and get as much variety as I can and have the ability to use a lens should I need it and not worry that it was left back home.

Cheers

Todd

In Lembeh I would pick up the 60mm first.

 

In RA I would use the 10.5mm for wide angle. RA probably has the best reefs in the world - and the 10.5mm is the way to shoot them.

 

In RA there is so much else to shoot though. 105mm for fish and macro. And a mid-range zoom can be nice for wobbegongs and other larger creatures.

 

Alex

 

Personally I would use many more lenses - to generate as wide a variety of images as possible. In RA recently I used 10.5mm, 16mm, 12-24mm, 17-55mm, 28-70mm, 60mm, 105mm, 150mm + 10.5mm with TC and 105mm and 150mm with dioptres.

Well, if I had as many lenses as you and was as good with them, I would use more too. Of course, if you'll be there in late Sept/Oct, I'd be happy to borrow some of yours .

Thanks for all the great feedback and dive advice. I'll make sure to bring along my safety sausage. Sounds like the consensus is I'll definitely want to pick up the 60mm for the larger stuff in Lembeh. Good, because I really wanted an excuse. Based on the feedback, I'll look at the 10.5; I loved the 15mm on my old Nikonos and that should be closest.

Crazy question: I've got the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom too. Has anyone seen this housed, or does nobody even make a port for it? It's an awesome topside critter lens, but is also a boat anchor.

Thanks,

Tim

Lending lenses is a dangerous thing! I lent JP Trenque my 10.5mm on one trip and he went and won the BBC News Photographer of the Year with it!

http://www.jptrenque.com/bbc.php

Alex

Lending lenses is a dangerous thing! I lent JP Trenque my 10.5mm on one trip and he went and won the BBC News Photographer of the Year with it!

http://www.jptrenque.com/bbc.php

 

Alex

Wow, thanks for sharing (the lens and the pic).

Yeah, I don't like to lend lenses for the same reason - there's a real danger they'll get better shots than me. Sadly, pretty sure there'd be no danger of that.

The other problem is that your dive kit gets to go places you haven't been. Last month my strobe went to Galapagos - somewhere I have always dreamed of going! Maybe one day...

Alex

The other problem is that your dive kit gets to go places you haven't been. Last month my strobe went to Galapagos - somewhere I have always dreamed of going! Maybe one day...

 

Alex

Probably better than you getting there with no kit.

Bill

Ok, back to a serious question. Trying to figure out the difference between a fisheye and a wideangle underwater - specifically, the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye and the 12-24mm Tokina, since they're roughly the same price. The 10.5mm fisheye is faster, but I've never been crazy about the optical distortion of a fisheye on land. What's this look like underwater? If you have sample pics that illustrate the difference, I'd like to see them.

Tim

Ok, back to a serious question. Trying to figure out the difference between a fisheye and a wideangle underwater - specifically, the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye and the 12-24mm Tokina, since they're roughly the same price. The 10.5mm fisheye is faster, but I've never been crazy about the optical distortion of a fisheye on land. What's this look like underwater? If you have sample pics that illustrate the difference, I'd like to see them.

 

Tim

Fisheyes look much more natural underwater, where there are no straight lines. Bear in mind that you have to be incredibly close to get good photos with a fisheye.

Alex, does that mean you get an increased baggage allowance when you do go to Galapagos?

Fisheyes look much more natural underwater, where there are no straight lines. Bear in mind that you have to be incredibly close to get good photos with a fisheye.

Alex, does that mean you get an increased baggage allowance when you do go to Galapagos?

Is that because the fisheye makes everything look very small and far away, or some other reason? W/ my 15mm, I most often shot the old "close and interesting foreground object, nice background" landscape type of pic, is this not the right lens for that? Am I gonna blow all the incredible whale shark and manta pics I plan to take in my life because I have to be too close or they look tiny?

If someone (and by someone I mean Alex, since he said it ) has a pic or two that illustrates the differences between these lenses, or illustrates why the 10.5 is the lens to shoot at RA, I'd sure like to see it.

Alex, if you do get an increased baggage allowance, lemme know if I can ride along in your lens bag - it's gotta be big enough to fit me if you're carrying all those lenses around.

Here are some reefy shots taken with the 10.5mm - to show the look of images that this lens produces (the third one is not RA):

And here is a shot with the 12-24mm:

Alex

Here are some reefy shots taken with the 10.5mm - to show the look of images that this lens produces (the third one is not RA):

 

 

 

 

And here is a shot with the 12-24mm:

 

 

Alex

Excellent, thanks - that's very helpful. I really appreciate the thorough answers - this board is the best.