Nikon macro lens, which one/s to take

Don,

 

Great pics! Is the pigmy a full frame (non cropped) shot? How did you get the pigmy to look at you and not turn away?

 

After seeing your photos I am sold on the flexibility of the 70-180 lens, rhinopias to pigmy with one lens.

 

Elmer

 

Elmer:

Since you are my friend I will let you borrow some of the identical shots I will be taking alongside you - with my 60 - and then you can pretend you are using both lenses at the same time - providing we can muscle "the Octopus" out of the way. With the subject matter in the Lembeh Straights I don't think you can go wrong either way. Although as we have both seen recently it is possible to carry two cameras at once - maybe you can hire a dive Sherpa?!

Andy

Andy,

 

As a friend, you can use my new 60 ED along side me as we muscle "the octopus" out of the way.

 

Elmer

With DX, the 70-180 is too long to shoot some subjects without being further back than you'd like. For those subjects a 60mm macro could be used but it's not the only solution. The 60mm has the advantage of being both a portrait lens and a macro lens but it is still long on DX as Alex said. My approach with DX is to use the 70-180 as the main lens and switch to wider if I know I will be shooting larger subjects. In that case, high magnification isn't as important so I use a midrange zoom. The 70-180 is capable of good effective magnification on DX though I'd use a 5T rather than a 6T with it. A 6T makes the lens too inflexible.

 

With FX, the 70-180 will no longer be as strong a macro lens for small subjects but it will become wider for the larger ones so I'd think it would be even more suitable for places like Lembeh. The problem with the 60mm in combination with the 70-180 is that is simply not differentiated enough. Neither is the 105 really. You need something wider for portraits and something stronger for supermacro. That's why I like the 150mm as a complement to the 70-180.

 

I think, in a broader sense, you need to know the variety of subjects you most often shoot and choose a main macro lens that best addresses the need. Hopefully that lens will also offer you the most flexibility. That's the reason that people like the 70-180 and the same reason that Alex recommends the 60mm for Lembeh.

You and Alex make a good point regarding DX format and focal length.

 

On my prior trip to Lembeh I found the 60 at times just too long with a D200 for some shots of rhinopias, giant frogfish and flying gurnards. I am thinking the 24-85 mm f 2.8-4D set on macro making it a 35-85 zoom might do the trick.

 

Elmer

Don,

 

Great pics! Is the pigmy a full frame (non cropped) shot? How did you get the pigmy to look at you and not turn away?

 

After seeing your photos I am sold on the flexibility of the 70-180 lens, rhinopias to pigmy with one lens.

 

Elmer

 

 

Hi Elmer, yes - they are uncropped images....

 

I really do not know what happened yesterday, but I finally got a cooperative pygmy! Here is the image that I got just before the earlier one - not quite upto Alex's free swimming image, but I was very happy to get it and I think it further illustrates what the 70-180 can do...

 

The pygmy is the most dangerous creature in the sea in my opinion - I have got in to more deco trouble with them that with any other creature!

 

Don

Hi Elmer, yes - they are uncropped images....

 

I really do not know what happened yesterday, but I finally got a cooperative pygmy! Here is the image that I got just before the earlier one - not quite upto Alex's free swimming image, but I was very happy to get it and I think it further illustrates what the 70-180 can do...

 

The pygmy is the most dangerous creature in the sea in my opinion - I have got in to more deco trouble with them that with any other creature!

 

Don

 

Don,

 

WOW, WOW!!!! A pigmy swimming! With those pigmy shots I can understand why you went into deco.

I can also see why you use the 70-180 set up with a Woody diopter, I just ordered a diopter from Ryan.

What port are you using, is it the one that allows manual and auto focus switching underwater?

 

thanks,

Elmer

Alex,

Why not shoot it with that close focus wide set up you used here in Bali? I love that style of shot showing the full environment in which the animal lives... go on just for me lah!

I was thinking about this while diving this morning - and I do think it depends a lot on what your target species are here.

 

If you are after nudis, shrimps, pygmies etc then you will want a very different lens than if you are after wonderpus, mimics, Rhinopias etc.

 

I think any lens, such as the 70-180mm, that can do Rhinopias to pygmies is gonna be very useful here in Lembeh. The main advantage of going to wider macro lenses is to get better separation of the subjects - making the background appear further away and less distracting. Longer lenses flatten the perspective so that the background looks closer to the subject, although they often blur because of the narrow DoF.

 

Alex

 

p.s. Who says I am not doing some of that Graham?!

It's my last day in Lembeh today, so I tried some experiments with an Athena ring flash and a single Inon 240, fitted with a home made snout to concentrate the light. I had also intended to try the wide-angle macro technique that Alex wrote about recently, but never got round to it....

 

I was still using the 70-180, but without a Woody dioptre, as it cannot be used at the same time as the ring flash. I have to say that my results were dissapointing because the critters we saw were what I would call "medium size" and without the dioptre I was unable to get close and reduce the amount of water between the lens and them. It's clear that the dioptre is ESSENTIAL to get the most out of the inherent versatility of the 70-180.

 

Sitting here sipping my cold Bintang at the end of this 7 day trip, which came at the end of a 12 day charter from Sorong through Halmahera to Lembeh, where we shot mainly wide-angle, makes me think about Alex's points earlier - basically I was so pleased to get so many good "traditional" images of the vast array of critters here in Lembeh, that I never got chance to experiment as I intended to....

 

I am a great believer in stretching one's personal evelope and trying new things, but Lembeh is such a "target rich environment" that I was concentrating on getting what I wanted to shoot before trying new things to get the different perspectives.

 

Diving from Divers Lodge means that you leave in the morning with the set-up you will use all day, as lunch is on the boat, so there is no way to change your rig.

 

Don

 

Elmer, to answer your question about the port - it's the Subal one with the manual focus option, but I rarely use it as I find the autofocus to be quite good provided I use my Fisheye focusing light.

Don,

 

Which fisheye are you using the HID or LED?

Also how bright (what setting on dial) does it need to be to assist the auto focusing on the 70-180 in Lembeh?

 

Thanks,

Elmer

I've been on the same trip (boat and land) with Don (just to be clear, I'm just sharing a room with don , not "with" Don...not that there's anything wrong with that ) so I'm sitting here at Divers Lodge Lembeh at the end of a great trip as well.

 

I shoot Canon, so my only reason for pitching in on this thread is to offer two quick observations:

 

1. I have been AMAZED at the results Don has been getting with his 70-180 and Woody's wet diopter! If Canon made a comparable macro zoom lens, I'd order it the first day I got back. I must admit I've started falling into the "primes are best" camp (note the slightly upturned nose when I say that?). And I realize that if you're going for a specific target, you can pick the best (prime) lens for that situation from your camera bag. After diving with Don, however, and seeing how amazingly flexible the 70-180 is, I would almost view it as the "ideal" (realizing that word comes with flashing warning signs!) lens for a place like Lembeh where subjects tend to range between the two photo subjects Don posted. As he says, the Woody's diopter is a really important part of that flexibility (I'll be posting some impressions of my Canon 100mm with Seacam diopter after I get back, as there are some similarities). But often shooting the exact same subjects and comparing images at the end of the day, Don has left me in the dust (or more aptly, the silt) in more cases than not. That is partly a tribute to his excellent skills as a photographer, but his choice of the 70-180 + diopter certainly helped...

 

2. There are several Fisheye lights on this trip. Don and two other people have been using the HID version, and it definitely has the brighter beam capability on night dives when used as primary dive light. However, I have both lights, and have been using the LED version for the first time on this trip, and in waters with reasonable vis (i.e., virtually anywhere in Indonesia or the Indo-Pacific region), the LED version is PLENTY bright, even as a primary dive light. Considering its far longer battery life and the fact that it uses AA batteries (vs. the proprietary battery of the HID version), I doubt I'll ever use the HID again (except in Puget Sound, where vis is dramatically lower on average, and the brighter "dive light" capability of the HID is a real asset). If you just want a great focus light, either version will do the job (and you'll typically use it at reduced brightness with skittish subjects anyway).

 

Anyway, that's the unsolicited $0.02 (which is worth less and less these days!) of a Canon user in a Nikon thread...

Hi Guys,

 

Don,

In summary, how would you describe your use of the 'Woody's' diopter during your trip?

Was it used to increase the magnification of the 70-180 at the 180mm end, so you could

photo the pygmies, or to shorten the minmum focus distance, again for the pygmies?

Did you use the woody at the 70-100mm range of the zoom?

Another question would be, do you think that the 70-180 with an internal diopter fitted,

be too inflexible at the 70mm end?

 

Generally, it is unfair to assume that the "non professional, infrequent tavelling" photog

has prior 'target' knowledge of every dive-site that he visits or intends to visit. It is for this

reason that I am so interested in getting a quality zoom working close to macro specs, so

that I can enter my local temperate waters with a quiet confidence knowing that I should

have most of my local critters covered! Now, knowing that approx., 80% of my local critters

fall into the size range as being discussed here, you can understand my interest in getting

my hands on a zoom the size and quality of the 70-180mm Nikkor...

 

Sorry for the blab...

Bruce...

1. I have been AMAZED at the results Don has been getting with his 70-180 and Woody's wet diopter! If Canon made a comparable macro zoom lens, I'd order it the first day I got back. ... As he says, the Woody's diopter is a really important part of that flexibility...

I was once a D100/70-180 shooter that switched to Canon chasing the FF/IQ advantages they had/have a lead in. While I liked the Canon equipment I owned, I switched back to get the 70-180 again. I would say that if Canon offered something comparable I'd not only use it, I'd be using Canon today instead of Nikon. Yes, diopters have a profound impact on the 70-180. A Nikon 5T is mild enough to commit to and the stronger diopters like the MacroMate are great with it as well. Anyone who likes a Woody's with the 70-180 will really like an Inon 330.

 

I also agree completely with your Fisheye summary. I love the Halogen model but I love the LED's use of AA batteries and long burn time more. I would enjoy more light but it is adequate.

Hi Guys,

 

Don,

In summary, how would you describe your use of the 'Woody's' diopter during your trip?

Was it used to increase the magnification of the 70-180 at the 180mm end, so you could

photo the pygmies, or to shorten the minmum focus distance, again for the pygmies?

Did you use the woody at the 70-100mm range of the zoom?

Another question would be, do you think that the 70-180 with an internal diopter fitted,

be too inflexible at the 70mm end?

 

Generally, it is unfair to assume that the "non professional, infrequent tavelling" photog

has prior 'target' knowledge of every dive-site that he visits or intends to visit. It is for this

reason that I am so interested in getting a quality zoom working close to macro specs, so

that I can enter my local temperate waters with a quiet confidence knowing that I should

have most of my local critters covered! Now, knowing that approx., 80% of my local critters

fall into the size range as being discussed here, you can understand my interest in getting

my hands on a zoom the size and quality of the 70-180mm Nikkor...

 

Sorry for the blab...

Bruce...

 

Bruce, my "technique" - if you can call it that....is to get in the water with Woody's diopter clipped on to my BCD and my camera ready to go. Then I look for what is about and in Lembeh, with the right guide, the world is your oyster - there are critters everywhere if you know where to look, and good guides know where to look.

 

Then it's a case of how big the critter is ands how close I need to get to fill the frame. For a reasonable size creature - say an Ambon scorpionfish - you can fill the frame without needing the diopter. For small stuff, you need the diopter.

 

The worst thing you can do with the 70-180 is back off too far when there is a large critter, because the end result is awful due to the amount of water between the lens and the critter. Generally speaking, anymore than 18" away is too far and the less water, the better!

 

The other points you have made are exactly why I like the 70-180 so much, but you have to know it's limits and stay within them - if you do this, you will be richly rewarded....it's a great lens in my opinion.

 

Don

My macro lenses are 60mm, 105mm, 70-180mm and 24-70mm. I use the 60mm the least.

 

I am curious about your use of the 24-70 (I am assuming it is the Nikkor 24-70 f 2.8 G ED) as a macro lens. It appears it would be an ideal for larger subjects like the profile view of a rhinopias or giant frogfish. Are you housing it in a flat port or dome port and are you using any diopters? In a flat port it would focus to 14.4 inches, is this adequate for macro?

 

Also how would you compare the sharpness of the 70-180 to the 60?

 

thanks,

Elmer

My macro lenses are 60mm, 105mm, 70-180mm and 24-70mm. I use the 60mm the least.

I am curious about your use of the 24-70 (I am assuming it is the Nikkor 24-70 f 2.8 G ED) as a macro lens. It appears it would be an ideal for larger subjects like the profile view of a rhinopias or giant frogfish. Are you housing it in a flat port or dome port and are you using any diopters? In a flat port it would focus to 14.4 inches, is this adequate for macro?

 

Also how would you compare the sharpness of the 70-180 to the 60?

 

thanks,

Elmer

From this whole thread it seems that my new 60 ED will probably be the workhorse lens for this Lembeh trip (with Elmer and "the Octopus"). I also have the 105 VR. Since I am using an Aquatica housing it would appear that the 126 mm diameter of the Aquatica macro port (both the new compact version and the original version) is too big for the largest Woody's diopter (120 mm). I have a Macromate diopter on order from Backscatter. I know this works best with the 105 VR. Does anybody have any experience with using this with the 60 lens or do you have to get too close to the subject to make it useful? If it were useful obviously the 60 mm lens picks up some of the 105's additional magnification and with a wet diopter on the 60 you can still use the 60 without the diopter if you see a larger subject on the same dive. Does anybody know of any other wet diopters that will work with the Aquatica macro port or any easy do-it-youself ways to adapt the Woody's diopter to Aquatica. (Or I can find a cheap point and shoot and steal all of Elmer's and "the Octopus's good photos)

Thanks.

Andy