some stuff you don't see every day

Porcelain crab trying to catch a cardinalfish for dinner:

Jawfish with eggs:

Amphipods on a blue tunicate in Komodo:

Soft coral crab, also in Komodo:

Bangai cardinalfish:

Purple squat lobster in sponge:

Mandarinfish mating (the only shot they gave me):

Small white pipefish in anemone:

Stargazer:

Evil uplit scorpionfish:

Juvenile batfish:

Sometimes you do a whole dive and only get a picture of an unusual looking sponge:

Craig, that is amazing photography!

Wow, Craig! Looks like an amazing trip. All your shots of beautiful but the Anthropods on the blue tunicate really caught my eye. Would you mind sharing with us the lens setup you used to photograph these miniature critters so incredibly closed? How large were those anthropods?

The amphipods were on a blue tunicate that you may recognize the size of. I was using a 70-180 with a +1.5 diopter but my zoom setting was 122mm to frame the entire tunicate. I believe the entire frame is about at 1:1 35mm equivalent, confortably under the magnification limits of the lens. Exposure was f/22 and 1/180 and I set the dual Z220's at -3. I thought I had some shots at f/27 but I didn't. More strobe power caused the tunicate to glow and blow out. I believe this shot could be taken with a 5050, for example.

I think the largest of the amphipods is 1.5mm by 2mm. This subject looks like nothing interesting until you strobe it.

Here is a crop from another picture. The low res doesn't do the image justice:

Note: James corrected me on the "anthropods" vs."amphipods". I knew it at one time but haven't seen it in a book for a while. There's a good reason why I usually don't identify my subjects. The mind is the first to go. For me, the body followed soon after.

I have one shot right up towards the surface

I found another one of these batfish in the lagoon at Sangalaki in just 6" of water which was peaking at 34 degrees C!

craig you mentioned that you were using

70-180 with a +1.5 diopter but my zoom setting was 122mm to frame the entire tunicate

I have been chasing some squat lobsters on my local dive site which are maybe 10 mm or so ( I only have a 60mm macro lens to work with ). I want to get a diopter for the lens but different things I have read have left me a little unsure as to what sort of diopter I should be looking for and whether the loss of sharpness will be noticeable. Have you any suggestions in that regard?

Also do you have any tactics for lighting the critters like your squat lobster that hide in amongst sponges (or my case bryzoa)??

cheers!

Lndr

Yes, most of my macro is done with that lens since it is so flexible. The 70-180 is 90% as good as a 60 for bigger stuff, 90% as powerful as the 105mm for small, and 90% of the pulling power of the 200mm for shy stuff. I'm being creative here, but that's why it's nearly as good as diving with all three lenses at the same time. With digital it can fill the frame very easily due to the crop. It is a great, great lens for small macro diving although it can be a problem if you like to shoot angelfish.

For the purple squat lobster I set the zoom closer to 180 since it is so small and I bring my strobes very close in to the port. There will be considerable maneuvering trying to get the shot and I don't want shadows and don't want to hit the sponge. I have to set my strobe power very low as a result (-3 or so). I find this critter to be quite difficult to get.

Regarding the 60mm, the close focus is already really close and I don't think you'll see a big payoff in adding a diopter in order to get closer still. With the 60mm, the diopter will only allow you to get closer to your subject. It will not increase magnification at a set distance. This is not true of the 70-180 but that's another matter.

If you need more magnification than the 60mm for your subjects, you'll be much happier with a different lens. The 105mm is the standard next step. Tamron makes a 90mm macro and you can consider a 1.4x Tamron or Kenko teleconverter I suppose. To shoot something like the squat lobster, the 105mm would be the first choice for many I would imagine.

Thanks Craig.

hmmm ... I didn't know that a diopter wouldn't increase the magnification without a change the focal distance... I just went back and re-read the scuba geek article - I think its slowly sinking in

You're right about not needing to get closer.

I have a 60 as opposed to a 105 lens as i dive in the temperate waters of SE Australia which are, shall we say, typically quite murky. The extra water between the camera and the subject just making it much more difficult to get clear shots.

Just wondering ... would it be right to say that a 105 with diopter would behave more like a 60mm - as in have a smaller lens to subject distance than a "straight" 105?

cheers

Leander

Regarding the 60 - Diopters would seem the most cost effective route but would be impractical due to the already close working distances involved in the standard lens. Diopters reduce the working distance conciderably and the subject would then effectively need to be inside of the port and impossible to light.

The best route in my opinion for a fixed focal length lens is to buy a used 105 (as it offers greater initial working distances), and then experiment with a range of diopters. The smaller diameter of the 105 means that the screw-mount diopters will be cheaper too. There are plenty of optically sound, used 105's available, give the same peformance as a new one too!

When adding diopters to the standard 105 lens you must also consider adding an extra port ring (12mm) to compensate for the extra length otherwise the diopter will mark the port window.

Regarding your Aquatica choice - I have 2 and will be adding a third as soon as it's off the drawing board. Alas no used one's available!

Just wondering ... would it be right to say that a 105 with diopter would behave more like a 60mm - as in have a smaller lens to subject distance than a "straight" 105?

Yes, that's right. I agree with Bob's advise as well. The 105mm uses a 52mm thread so you can use inexpensive diopters. Canon makes a +2 (500D) and +4 (250D). Nikon makes a +1.5 (3T) and +3 (4T). Try diopter powers on land to get a feel for which power you need and use the weakest diopter that does the job. Try to use the dual element (achromat) diopters like the ones I've quoted. They are more expensive but will have less chromatic abberation. They are thicker and may require the a port extension as Bob mentioned.

A 105mm with a diopter at 6-8 inches will offer mind-blowing magnification (especially with a cropped sensor) compared to what you are used to.

You must also resign yourself to the fact when equipped in such a manner that you are limited by subject size for the whole of that dive - Can be frustrating!

You must also resign yourself to the fact when equipped in such a manner that you are limited by subject size for the whole of that dive - Can be frustrating

... Isn't frustration the norm - if you have the macro on, the mantas swim past (yes I've been there ... oh, and they are like hens teeth in this part of the world!)

105mm uses a 52mm thread so you can use inexpensive diopters

Good news is I have 52mm thread diopters at home from my terrestrial photography days ... just need a lens to go with them ... LOL

... at this rate I'll never save enough for a dSLR!!!!!

Thanks for the help

Regarding your Aquatica choice

Sorry,

This was from and regarding another post.... Nural embolism again

Pretty incredible pics, Craig. The porcelain crab one grabs me as there is interaction -- did the crab ever catch dinner?

Question -- this was at Komodo, were you on Peter Hughes's Komodo Dancer? I've been debating that trip for a while.

Thanks,

Yeang

Pretty incredible pics, Craig. The porcelain crab one grabs me as there is interaction -- did the crab ever catch dinner?

 

Question -- this was at Komodo, were you on Peter Hughes's Komodo Dancer? I've been debating that trip for a while.

 

Thanks,

Yeang

No, it didn't. I was lined up shooting it when it noticed the cardinalfish and made a few grabs at it. Fortunately it hadn't noticed me and was going about its usual business.

This crab was particularly fascinating to me. It had reached down and picked up some debris and was feeding on it while at the same time it was catching things with its little "nets". It then sees a fish swimming by and tries to catch it. Quite an amazing creature when you think about it.

I took this in Lembeh although I was on the KD the following week. I like the KD a great deal. It's a older, converted sailboat but its quite beautiful and has plenty of room. The crew is great and the diving facilities are quite acceptable even though the boat wasn't made for that purpose. I wouldn't hesitate to use the boat again.

There is a similar, converted sailboat in the area that is supposed to be even roomier with a few rooms even having king-size beds. The name escapes me but James knows it. The KD has an identical sistership as well.

I had reached down and picked up some debris and was feeding on it

Was the debris tasty?

Sorry, I can't help myself.

Jim (aka The Grammar Nazi)

I had reached down and picked up some debris and was feeding on it

Was the debris tasty?

 

Sorry, I can't help myself.

 

Jim (aka The Grammar Nazi)

 

No, but better than the boat food perhaps.

I believe this shot could be taken with a 5050, for example.

 

I think the largest of the amphipods is 1.5mm by 2mm. This subject looks like nothing interesting until you strobe it.

Indeed. But first you'd have to find the tunicate with the amphipods in a position in which you could get a clear background.

This was the best I could find when I was there.

Well done Craig!

-David