I am fairly new to UW photography and to date have only had a point and shoot. I shoot canon DSLR's topside and have shot the rebel, 20D and the 7D. I have decided to shoot teh Rebel t2i for an underwater rig due to the size, cost and good reviews. I have decided on the Aquatica housing for mostly the same reasons. I will be shooting through the 8" dome and with a sea and sea YS-01 strobe. My delima is which lens to use. I have a Sigma 17-70 Macro which seems to have mixed reviews but seems to be a very versital lens but not as good as a dedicated lens for WA or Macro. I have done some shooting with a DSLR UW and tend to like the WA shots more than the macro and think I am going to go ahead and buy a WA lense to get started instead of starting out with the Sigma. The two lenses I am looking at are the Tokina 10-17 FE and the Tokina 11-16. I have seen the great reviews on the 10-17 but am not crazy about the distortion of the FE. Also I have had some recomendations to go with the Tokina 12-24 instead of the 11-16 if I do not want the FE but it does not seem to be as good of a lens. Any feedback woudl be appreciated.
- 9Posts
- 9Replies
Read-only discussion
New Canon/ Aquatica SLR rig
-
-
I am fairly new to UW photography and to date have only had a point and shoot. I shoot canon DSLR's topside and have shot the rebel, 20D and the 7D. I have decided to shoot teh Rebel t2i for an underwater rig due to the size, cost and good reviews. I have decided on the Aquatica housing for mostly the same reasons. I will be shooting through the 8" dome and with a sea and sea YS-01 strobe. My delima is which lens to use. I have a Sigma 17-70 Macro which seems to have mixed reviews but seems to be a very versital lens but not as good as a dedicated lens for WA or Macro. I have done some shooting with a DSLR UW and tend to like the WA shots more than the macro and think I am going to go ahead and buy a WA lense to get started instead of starting out with the Sigma. The two lenses I am looking at are the Tokina 10-17 FE and the Tokina 11-16. I have seen the great reviews on the 10-17 but am not crazy about the distortion of the FE. Also I have had some recomendations to go with the Tokina 12-24 instead of the 11-16 if I do not want the FE but it does not seem to be as good of a lens. Any feedback woudl be appreciated.
I think you will find that many folks here like the 10-17 quite a bit. UW, the fisheye effect is a lot less intrusive than topside.
Bill
-
Hands down, 10-17 is the best WA lens for underwater. I decided to stop using my 5dmk2 for UW because there's no equivalent for FF.
S.
-
Hands down, 10-17 is the best WA lens for underwater. I decided to stop using my 5dmk2 for UW because there's no equivalent for FF.
S.
That is a pretty strong recomendation for the 10-17 if you have stopped shooting the 5DMk2. Thanks for the feedback.
-
-
You have some really nice shots on your site. Thanks for sharing.
-
I am fairly new to UW photography and to date have only had a point and shoot. I shoot canon DSLR's topside and have shot the rebel, 20D and the 7D. I have decided to shoot teh Rebel t2i for an underwater rig due to the size, cost and good reviews. I have decided on the Aquatica housing for mostly the same reasons. I will be shooting through the 8" dome and with a sea and sea YS-01 strobe. My delima is which lens to use. I have a Sigma 17-70 Macro which seems to have mixed reviews but seems to be a very versital lens but not as good as a dedicated lens for WA or Macro. I have done some shooting with a DSLR UW and tend to like the WA shots more than the macro and think I am going to go ahead and buy a WA lense to get started instead of starting out with the Sigma. The two lenses I am looking at are the Tokina 10-17 FE and the Tokina 11-16. I have seen the great reviews on the 10-17 but am not crazy about the distortion of the FE. Also I have had some recomendations to go with the Tokina 12-24 instead of the 11-16 if I do not want the FE but it does not seem to be as good of a lens. Any feedback woudl be appreciated.
!0-17 Tokina is the way to go the distortion you refer to is not very visible underwater since we rarely have straight lines underwater see if you can try the lenses you might try a friend or a rental house for a short test shoot its the best invest youll ever make but i vote 10-17 all the best money i have ever spent on an u/w or topside lens Happy Diving/Shooting :-))DD
-
I also read an article on underwaterphotographyguide.com about the Sigma 8-16 as being a good UW lens that is very wide (not as wide as 10-17) but not fisheye. I have seen so many raves about the 10-17 I may just have to get over my concerns about distortion and start with that one. Thanks for everyones feedback it really helps for a newbie making decisions.
-
The Tokina 12-24 is a good lens as well.
Topside use is the reason I chose it over its main rival. I tend to use my camera more above the surface than below lately since my kids are getting older.
Good luck with the choice.
