Next lens?

I have a D300 and a Seatool housing, along with the Nikon 105mm fisheye and Nikon 105mm VR lenses and corresponding Seatool ports. I also have the Tokina 12-24mm lens but no port (don't think Seatool support it), and i'm planning to get the Tokina 10-17mm.

After using the above set-up in the Red Sea recently (day diving out of Sharm), I found that for many dives there was very little macro or wide-angle opportunities, and the fisheye and macro lenses were too "extreme" for shots of morays, scorpionfish etc.

So, what would be a good next lens for those dives which aren't going to be specifically wide-angle or macro?

thanks,

Jon

Out of material for the 10.5mm in the Red Sea?

If don't find it there you won't find it anywhere, I think you might not be getting close enough.

With the 10.5 it needs to be about 5cm to touch the dome.

Anyway, for anything in between I use a Sigma 10-20mm and will probably get a 60mm.

well you've basically got the two extremes, a 180 degree fisheye and a long macro. Your other options are a wide zoom like your 12-24mm (good for wide angle when a fisheye feels over the top), a mid range zoom like the 17-55mm, though the usefulness of a mid zoom is debated, good for medium to large fish (like groupers & sharks) or the 60mm macro which is much more versatile than the 105mm macro and still goes to 1:1 though you almost have to touch the port to your subject for it.

There is also a 35mm macro lens. A midrange perspective is useful; the question is whether you use a midrange zoom or a short prime to get it. There are midrange zooms with decent macro capabilities. Sigma 18-50 and 17-70 come to mind.

The beauty of the Seatool housings is the availability of port adapters. You can use Sea & Sea, Nexus, Subal, Inon and perhaps some others.

Mariozi, I'm thinking more of fish where getting close enough for the fisheye is not possible. I didn't choose particularly good fish examples in my earlier post; perhaps something like the lyre-tailed grouper is a better example. I've never managed to get any closer than maybe 2m to these, at which distance they still look small and distant with the fisheye.

The Sigma 17-70mm sounds like it may be what i'm after.

thanks,

Jon

I'd buy a trip to the Brothers with your existing lenses!

You have great glass, and I would play with it until you are happy, rather than pursuing an even more expensive lens bag...

Tim

I have the Sigma 17-70 and a Nikkor 24-85, f 2.8-4D. I prefer the Nikkor set at macro making it a 35-85mm behind a flat port. It is an excellent fish lens that will also do 1:2 shots and is a sharper lens then the Sigma.

Elmer

Your next lenses should be your first lenses.

Choose a 60mm or 17-55mm/17-70mm type of wide angle zoom (behind a dome). The 12-24mm would be a good choice if you didn't already have the 10.5mm.

Your first lenses are extreme; both wide and macro. If you are new to photography and/or underwater photography, it is always easier to work your way toward the extremes rather than start there. I could tell you how I rarely use anything other than the 105mm or 10-17mm at 10mm, but the relevant point would be that this is ten years after I started.

Once you can capture a well composed wide angle shot at 17mm and get it properly lighted with strobes AND you keep saying you need to get wider, try the 10.5mm again. Opportunities will miraculously appear to use the lens that were never there before.

I am using a Tamron 17-50 for those "in-between" shots or when I simply don't know what to expect from a dive-site. The fact that it is a f2.8 doesn't hurt either. Even though I bought this lens for diving, I find myself using it quite often top-side as well. Optically, this lens is great and it focuses very quickly as well. Here is a link with tests and charts.

One downside with this lens and from what I hear, the Sigma 17-xx as well, is that it extends quite a bit when going from 17mm to its maximum length. This requires the use of a large port and that can lead to optical problems (edges are very soft) when using at 17mm. If you use a shorter port, the edges get better, but you can't use the full length of the lens.

tdpriest, having just reviewed my red sea photos i suspect you have a point.

BTW, so far i haven't bought any lens specifically for underwater use; the lenses i listed i already had for topside use before i got the housing. For the last 5 years i've been shooting with compacts underwater.

jon

For the last 5 years i've been shooting with compacts underwater.

Because a DSLR rig is that much bigger and optically quite different to a compact you have to relearn some parts of your photography. You have to get really close with a 10.5mm fisheye, and it needs much better illumination than a compact, for instance. The 105mm needs, in my experience, a good focus light if you use autofocus and, again, good (strobe) illumination.

About 1m from the turtle, 10.5mm:

105mm, about 60cm distance, reproduction ratio about 2.5:1:

These comments, about getting closer and having better illumination, apply to most lenses, certainly to all wide-angles where the field of view is greater than a compact, and macro lenses where the f-stop is much higher than it would be with a compact.

Tim

HI,

I use the same four 60mm/ 105mm/ 12x24wa/ 10/17fe & never have any trouble finding subjects,

I agree with other comments you need to get close then get closer, look a bit harder 7 keep shooting.

Andy

Thanks all for the advice. It seems i need to practice sneaking up on fish.

jon