Glass for the 7D?

I've finally gotten around to looking at some of my images from shooting with my 7D in the water over the last few weeks. Below is the first I've had a look at, shot using a Sigma 17-70mm behind a 8" dome. No editing done, just a straight jpg conversion using ACR. To me it does look like the image hosted on flickr is a bit more desaturated than the file I uploaded from my computer. Has anyone else found this?

I've done about 10-15 dives with the sigma, and 2 dives with my 60mm on the 7D now, and both seem to be working well. Unfortunately most of the time I was working and unable to give the camera a good run, but I was able to sneak in the occasional shot or two (or twice even an entire dive), to see what it could do (Peter, if you're reading this, I mean of course I was working 100% of the time!).

Canon 7D, Sigma 17-70mm @17mm, modified Aquatica 5Dmkii housing, 2x Inon Z240's. ISO 125, f10, 1/125.

Norman Reef, GBR, Australia

More to come!

Ryan.

Canon 7D, Sigma 17-70mm @17mm, modified Aquatica 5Dmkii housing, 2x Inon Z240's. ISO 125, f10, 1/125.

 

Norman Reef, GBR, Australia

 

More to come!

 

Ryan.

Nice! Congratulations on being the first to get an underwater photo with a 7D here (and anywhere else, I think).

Love to see more.

Which controls are workable with the 7D on your 5DMarkII housing, and which modifications were necessary? Obviously you have the shutter...LOL.

That 17-70 seems to do the job behind the 8" dome.

Again, thanks

Bo

I've finally gotten around to looking at some of my images from shooting with my 7D in the water over the last few weeks. Below is the first I've had a look at, shot using a Sigma 17-70mm behind a 8" dome. No editing done, just a straight jpg conversion using ACR. To me it does look like the image hosted on flickr is a bit more desaturated than the file I uploaded from my computer. Has anyone else found this?

 

I've done about 10-15 dives with the sigma, and 2 dives with my 60mm on the 7D now, and both seem to be working well. Unfortunately most of the time I was working and unable to give the camera a good run, but I was able to sneak in the occasional shot or two (or twice even an entire dive), to see what it could do (Peter, if you're reading this, I mean of course I was working 100% of the time!).

 

 

Canon 7D, Sigma 17-70mm @17mm, modified Aquatica 5Dmkii housing, 2x Inon Z240's. ISO 125, f10, 1/125.

 

Norman Reef, GBR, Australia

 

More to come!

 

Ryan.

Great stuff Ryan!

Just for the record I tried a 7D in my Subal 5D2 housing but it doesnt fit (an no modification is possible either)

Great stuff Ryan!

Just for the record I tried a 7D in my Subal 5D2 housing but it doesnt fit (an no modification is possible either)

Somewhat off topic, but interesting to many here.

As reported by various members here at Wetpixel who tried the 7D inside a 5Dm2 housing, the following shows:

Sea&Sea - no (modification not possible due to housing too low to accommodate the (closed) flash)

Aquatica - yes (with modifications)

Subal - no

Ikelite - ??? (Hope to have an answer soon).

Anybody else tried a 7D inside a housing not designed for this camera?

Bo

Nice! Congratulations on being the first to get an underwater photo with a 7D here (and anywhere else, I think).

 

Love to see more.

 

Which controls are workable with the 7D on your 5DMarkII housing, and which modifications were necessary? Obviously you have the shutter...LOL.

 

That 17-70 seems to do the job behind the 8" dome.

 

Again, thanks

 

Bo

Thanks guys! Still a few more photos to go thru. Maybe tomorrow.

Have access to shutter, rear wheel (aperture) and review button. No shutter speed, etc. It's enough to get basic photos. Although the cameras got a few marks on it from where the housings pushing against it.

Ryan.

Although the cameras got a few marks on it from where the housings pushing against it.

I have to come to a important decision (within the next two weeks) on which 17-40/70 zoom lens to choose.

I have it narrowed down to 2 lenses, The Canon 17-40L around $700 (with rebate this month) and Sigma 17-70 around $370.

My budget is around $800. I do nature, weddings, product and portrait photography. I would like to upgrade to the FF 5Dm2 sometime in the future, but probably not soon.

I like the weather-sealing on the canon L glass, but question the cost for such and the trade off in low light lens speed. Also no macro. But, FF sensor ready, quality built and Canon reliability.

With the Sigma I have macro, increased range, f2.8 on 17, and money left for another lens.

(With the newly announced Sigma 17-70 OS, I would also get increased hand-hold stops for an additional $80 above the old non optical stabilized 17-70).

From those here that have experience with these above mentioned lenses, which one would you go with and why? Thanks for any help and input on factors for me to consider.

Bo

the 17-40 is really an excellent lens in build quality and optically throughout the zoom range

the problem on crop frame is that it's not quite long enough or wide enough. underwater it's really a medium zoom for those times when you need a medium zoom which may or may not be very often - it's not wide and it's not macro although it focuses decently close. on land it's pretty much the same - would be just fine for group wedding photos, but not long enough or fast enough to be used without something longer and faster as a companion lens

i'm no fan of Sigma quality and reliability and service but don't have experience with the 17-70. the Canon 17-55 is excellent optically although more expensive than the 17-40 and not as robust (the lensrentals.com reliability dat make very interesting reading).

the 7D really does need good glass to reach it's potential

Thanks for the input chaps. Its been very much apprciated.

So, I gues the shopping list is going to look like this:

2 x Nauticam housings

2 x 7D bodies

2 x 8" Zen domes

1 x 4" Zen dome

2 x Tokina 10-17

2 x Canon 17-40

2 x Canon 60 and ports

I'll come back to the Canon 100 and ports later.

I'd best ask my card issuer for a raised limit...

I've just got myself a 7D, has anyone used the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 lens rather than the 10-17mm 3.5?

has anyone used the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 lens rather than the 10-17mm 3.5?

I've just got myself a 7D, has anyone used the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 lens rather than the 10-17mm 3.5?

As Gudge said, they're quite different lenses. I picked up an 11-16 last year, mainly for topside stuff, but also for underwater. It gets a bit of use, although I do intend to grab a 10-17 at some point. Here's a shot I snapped a couple of weeks ago with it on my 7D, the only dive I've done with the combination to date.

Canon 7D, Tokina 11-16mm @11mm, +2 dioptre, Magic Filter, no strobes, ISO400, f13, 1/80

There's a bunch of other shots on my flickr site with this lens on a 40D as well. It generally performs OK, although some softish corners in most shots. Doesn't focus to close either, so you'll need to use a dioptre on it. I'd have to say though, if you're looking at it for just underwater, I'd go with the fisheye.

Ryan.

i've got limited experience with the 11-16 underwater, but recently did a dry test against the Canon 10-22 and sold the 10-22 (which is in no way a bad lens). the issue with the 11-16 (and rectilinear wide angles in general) UW is getting the position within the dome correct and diopter to realize the corner sharpness of which the lens is capable. i've got some good UW shots with the 11-16 but won't argue against fisheye -- UW.

i've got limited experience with the 11-16 underwater, but recently did a dry test against the Canon 10-22 and sold the 10-22 (which is in no way a bad lens). the issue with the 11-16 (and rectilinear wide angles in general) UW is getting the position within the dome correct and diopter to realize the corner sharpness of which the lens is capable. i've got some good UW shots with the 11-16 but won't argue against fisheye -- UW.

The Canon 10-22 is another nice piece of glass... most of my wide angle shots from this Egypt collection are using that:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersal...57622493226538/

I shoot the the Tokina 10-17 and the Tokina 12-24 underwater.

I've recently come to the conclusion that I waste my time shooting the 12-24. The 10-17 will always be the better option. The extra reach offered by the 12-24 just tempts me to use it. My shots suffer as a result. Try comparing a shark shot 10-15 feet away with a shot 3 feet away. The difference is night and day. I suspect I'd have the same problem with the Tokina 11-16.

On a crop sensor, the Canon 17-40 is WAY too long.

That said, I'll probably sell the 12-24 f3.5 to buy an 11-16 f2.8. The extra stop will handy for video on the 7D. For wide stills the 10-17 (or equivalent) is the only lens I'd carry on a trip.

Just my $0.02.

-Brad

The Canon 10-22 is another nice piece of glass... most of my wide angle shots from this Egypt collection are using that:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersal...57622493226538/

Indeed, I used the 10-22 exclusively underwater for a trip I just back from in the Maldives/Bali. While I had intended to also use the 17-40, I stupidly forgot the slightly different sized gear ring at home. Doh!

I love the 10-22 though. This was my first time with the 7D in the Ikelite case underwater (aside from pool tests), so I'm still getting used to it. I posted a trip report in that forum, but it all links to here:

http://dcrainmaker.blogspot.com/2010/01/da...k-research.html

Along with a ton of underwater stuff (night dives, regular dives, snorkeling, HD video, etc...), here:

http://dcrainmaker.blogspot.com/2010/01/da...ames-night.html

Everything taken 7D on 10-22 all mostly auto with a DS-51. HD video was taken at 1080p and then downconverted to 720p.

Hey, congrats! ... I'm sorry to lose a charter member of the 'G' club ... but I think you'll be happy.

 

My hunch is that you might like the 100mm better than the 60mm ... but I'm only saying that because you like to shoot the UCLs at long focal lengths with lots of working distance.

Hey Jeremy, you were absolutely correct. The Canon 100mm L IS is my preferred macro tool which I adjust using INON 330 and 165 UCL's (the Nauticam macro port is M67 threaded). Hope to see you back here soon.

Thanks to everyone who offered me the benefit of their experience. It is much appreciated. Having committed to a 7D and Nauticam which I've furnished with:

Canon 100mm L IS

Canon 60mm

Tokina 10-17mm

Sigma 17-70mm HSM OS

Kenko 1.4 TC

I figure that covers most of the bases.

CJ's 7D rig is imminent...

What I am thinking is this. Just two more lenses will cover _all_ the bases and will give us both lots of opportunities to shoot complimentary images alongside one another. Adding a Sigma 8-16mm and Canon 17-40mm to the portfolio may achieve this.

So, if we were both shooting macro or WAM our choices would be:

1. Canon 60mm

2. Canon 100mm

3. Tokina 10-17mm and Kenko 1.4 TC

If pelagics or portraits:

4. Sigma 17-70mm

5. Canon 17-40mm

If W/A:

6. Tokina 10-17mm

7. Sigma 8-16mm

Grateful as always for your kind input.

Thanks, Tim

Thanks to everyone who offered me the benefit of their experience. It is much appreciated. Having committed to a 7D and Nauticam which I've furnished with:

 

Canon 100mm L IS

Canon 60mm

Tokina 10-17mm

Sigma 17-70mm HSM OS

Kenko 1.4 TC

 

I figure that covers most of the bases.

I just bought the exact same camera rig minus the 100mm lens (will buy once I book a trip to a macro destination). My recommendation is to keep the number of lenses to a minimum. I use the sigma 17-70 as my all-purpose topside lens. All of my local diving (Great Lakes) is done with the tokina 10-17 due to wrecks and low visibility. Like you said, those four lenses pretty much cover all your needs.

Thanks JB. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly enough, which is...

While I'm very happy with my original suite of lenses, when my son, CJ, aquires a 7D as well and we are diving together there will be overlap in our photography. I'm not prepared to disadvantage either of us by insisting "you shoot macro, i'll shoot w/a" or visa - versa. Similarly, I not sure that doubling up identical lenses is a good idea either as there will be occasions when we dive independently and will benefit from greater choice.

So my strategy is to have both depth and breadth in our mutual lens collection, hence the addition of the 8-16mm (a rectilinear to compliment the fish-eye 10-17mm) and the short Canon zoom (to compliment the longer Sigma zoom).

I hope that clarifies my thinking and thanks for your input.

Cheers, Tim