Lenses for D200 in "dark" water

I have bought Nikon D200 and now i am looking for the right lens. The main project is to photo wreck which is in my bay. The wreck is from 14 to 27 meters deep. I want to make one photo from many. Can any one tell me which lens would suite best for this kind of shooting.

Greetings from Iceland

Gisli

Dark water in Iceland ? I just think about my dive in Silfra with 100+ visability...

I have been using the Sigma 15mm fisheye when shooting wrecks in the often murky waters of my home ground - Sweden and the Baltic sea with good result. I will inaugurate my new Tokina 10-17mm next week in Malta, and i think its a great lens.

/T

you want to make one photo from many, I guess that means combine images into a panaramic view? very nice...

well then I guess that would eliminate fisheye lenses, I would think it would be difficult to combine images with fisheye distortion unless you "de-fished" them.

Probably a nikon 12-24, tokina 12-24, or sigma 10-20 would do the trick.

the tokina 11-16 might be the best bet, since its the fastest lens, but its not out yet in the US, maybe in europe it will be soon?

maybe others who have actually done this before will chime in.

scott

I have been using PT-Lens to remove the barrel and perspective distortion: http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

Then you might use Panorama tools to create the panorama picture: http://epaperpress.com/pano/index.html

I'm sure there are lots of other tools as well.

Thanks very much guys.

What about the aperture is f/3.5 in 10-17 tokina the best. What about tokina 16-50mm f/2.8

Isn´t all about f when murky water.?

I dived Silfra many years ago and i can´t wait going there again with proper photo equipment. What a place.

Cheers

Gisli

Isn�t all about f when murky water.?

Gisli

That's one way to look at it, but it's not "ALL about f." Another approach in murky water is to get in very close and provide the light, so f isn't much of an issue at all.

The 10-17 is the lens I use in such conditions. It is a fisheye though and I have never tried a Panorama with it.

Gisli,

I've actually been considering the same thing, but have yet to try it in the field. I'm still waiting for the ice to thaw from the lakes around here

I think what you want to do will be very challenging to do underwater. Most panoramas are built with the assumption that that the camera will be rotated around the nodal point, but that won't work underwater. Instead you have to change perspective by moving from point to point and snapping pictures.

For your question, I don't think that lens speed (f#) is a big issue as you don't need to high shutter speeds to freeze a fast moving subject. I think that you're wreck will accommodate slow shutter speeds, so the biggest issue is minimizing the water column between you and your subject. IE, you need to get as close as you can and still get as much of the Wreck into the viewfinder as possible. For this, fisheyes are king. Especially in murky waters.

I wouldn't worry too much about the distortions that are introduced by it's use. These can be corrected for in the panorama generating process. Your biggest issue is going to be in the execution of collecting the images. I think large changes in scale (moving closer and further from your subject), small rotations about image axis (horizon not horizontal) and changes in the scene due to lighting variations are going to be the biggest issues in getting a good panorama.

Here is a link to a tutorial that outlines how to do it using open source (free) tools. I'm planning on doing a couple of dry runs on the surface to get more familiar with the system before I try to do it underwater. You might want to do the same.

http://www.dojoe.net/tutorials/linear-pano/

Good luck!

Mike

Just another point, if you are going to use fish-eye lens and correct the distortions later by software, be aware to take more 'spares canvas' since the 'de-fished' actions cuts details in the corners.

If you are going to use a zoom, use it at the widest setting. I would prefer a prime lens. I'm not sure how well panoramas of wrecks work: the stitching always shows as the lighting is never uniform. I would try some ultra-close fisheye shots as well (10.5mm lens, +/- twin strobes, angled away from the dome at 45 degrees and held behind the housing). Without strobes the high-ISO shows as grain:

Tim

B)

You could also use the Nikkor 16mm f 2,8 fisheye. On a cropped camera, it will give pleasing results for closeup work.

My standard lenses for wreck shooting has always been as wide as possible. The 10,5mm filled the gap that 16mm on film left behind.

But there should be a few 16mm lenses collecting dust out there, you could pick them up cheap(is)

Iceland... what a fantastic country. I've just spend four days there and are now putting all other vacation plans on hold - got to go back for more.

I'm not sure how well panoramas of wrecks work: the stitching always shows as the lighting is never uniform.

So what's wrong with that? It depends on the purpose of the exercise. If yours is the first panorama to capture a boat that people are interested in, they'll forgive some imperfections -- Bob Ballard published some panoramas of wrecks with some obvious photo-artifacts, and National Geographic didn't have a problem with that.

So what's wrong with that? It depends on the purpose of the exercise. If yours is the first panorama to capture a boat that people are interested in, they'll forgive some imperfections -- Bob Ballard published some panoramas of wrecks with some obvious photo-artifacts, and National Geographic didn't have a problem with that.

Well, if Dr Ballard's standard is what you're aiming for...

... you need a ROV, not a camera!

And I'll stand by what I said, the best wreck pictures are not stitched, so it's well worth taking some that stand on their own as well as ones for creating a panorama.

Tim

B)

Thanks again guy´s.

There are so many things to be learned in this area, it is almost overwhelming but very exiting, at least for me, but not for my girlfriend:-) I can only read good things about this 10-20 sigma lens and i will also consider this 16 mm nikkor after looking trough johnny Christensen website. It shows very similar situations ( light and color) I am talking about.

Keep on writing

Gisli

i will also consider this 16 mm nikkor after looking trough johnny Christensen website. It shows very similar situations ( light and color) I am talking about.

 

Gisli

yeah, johnny has some great wreck shots on his web site, I just checked them out.

Temember, you'll need to get the 10.5mm nikon fisheye, not the 16mm, to replicate with your D200 what johnny did on film with his 16mm due to the crop factor...my apologies if you already knew that.

Scott

yeah, johnny has some great wreck shots on his web site, I just checked them out.

 

Temember, you'll need to get the 10.5mm nikon fisheye, not the 16mm, to replicate with your D200 what johnny did on film with his 16mm due to the crop factor...my apologies if you already knew that.

 

Scott

Depends on what you want to do with the pictures. If it's for traditionel pictures of one shot showing a part of the scenery, then go as wide as possible ie. 10,5mm.

But if you want to stitch the pictures together, the 16mm fisheye on a cropped camera will give about 120 degrees of view, while still maintaining lines thats possible to straighten.

There is bound to be some curves, but that effect is far less than on the full 10,5mm fisheye.

For closeup pictures of wreck artifacts, pool shots of swimmers and underwaterbabies, I'm using 16mm. http://johnnychristensen.com/section142113_107568.html

For general big view pictures of wreck sections, I'm using the 10,5mm.

http://johnnychristensen.com/gallery.html

I have never tried to stich a bunch of pictures together, but it could give some really cool results.

Thanks again.

Gisli

Dark water in Iceland ? I just think about my dive in Silfra with 100+ visability...

I have been using the Sigma 15mm fisheye when shooting wrecks in the often murky waters of my home ground - Sweden and the Baltic sea with good result. I will inaugurate my new Tokina 10-17mm next week in Malta, and i think its a great lens.

 

/T

Nikon makes a 2.8 18-55 zoom ed dx Great lens cost you about $1600 I shoot with that with a dome port + extension. Great results... Other then operator error...

Depends on what you want to do with the pictures. If it's for traditionel pictures of one shot showing a part of the scenery, then go as wide as possible ie. 10,5mm.

 

But if you want to stitch the pictures together, the 16mm fisheye on a cropped camera will give about 120 degrees of view, while still maintaining lines thats possible to straighten.

There is bound to be some curves, but that effect is far less than on the full 10,5mm fisheye.

 

For closeup pictures of wreck artifacts, pool shots of swimmers and underwaterbabies, I'm using 16mm. http://johnnychristensen.com/section142113_107568.html

 

For general big view pictures of wreck sections, I'm using the 10,5mm.

http://johnnychristensen.com/gallery.html

 

I have never tried to stich a bunch of pictures together, but it could give some really cool results.

For Stitching try CS3 photoshops automated feature is works really well!

Isn�t all about f when murky water.?

Murky will cause you pain with strobes.... the particles with reflect light into the lens if they are too close to the lens... You will need to get the angle extremely acute on the strobes as they relate to the Lens, so one thing to think about is how to get you strobes/ lighting farther away from the lens and best bet is two buddies and extend strobe cables...

Light falloff will be key too unless you are shooting natural. In which case look for a really fast lens. I.E. the Tokina 11-16 mentioned by some one or the Nikkor I mentioned.

Nikon makes a faster lens, but it does not get great reviews on quality with the digital cameras.

Nikon makes a faster lens, but it does not get great reviews on quality with the digital cameras.

Actually, I bougth Nikon after reading reviews after reviews so you must be joking