Question 1. (of many to come) Lenses For Nikon D100??

Was looking at Video then consumer digital still and in the end was able to pick up the following from a fellow diver for less than I would have paid for a 5050/L&M set up.

Aquatica AD100 Housing (single bulk head 5-pin), 1- 8" dome port/shade/dome shade neoprene cover, 1-standard port with manual focus knob, neoprene cover for standard port , 1-extension ring for the 17-35mm lens , 1- zoom gear ring for the 17-35mm lens, 2 Sea & Sea YS90 DX strobes with diffusers, 1-S&S dual sync cord 5 pin , Lots of TLC arm parts, 1-Aquatica light saddle, 1-Nikon D100 digital camera, and misc accessories.

At this point I can only afford two lenses. I am most interested in one lens that will work for “fish portrait” too “wife alongside big sponge”, “wife on deck of wreck”… (Must be flattering shots so I can keep buying toys). The other lens will be for Macro shots. Cost is factor, no +$1000 lenses.

What combination of 2 lenses would you suggest? Please feel free to suggest combos not listed below.

Being considered are:

Nikkor AF Micro 105mm f/2.8

Nikkor AF 18-35 f/3.5-4.5

Nikkor AF 60mm f/2.8

Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8

Sigma AF 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 Aspherical

Sigma AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 (Makes sense since have flatport, ext, gear)

Think USED it's cheaper and you can get all three of the Nikkor lenses on eBay presently - Just search - 'Nikkor'

12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor

Nikkor AF 60mm f/2.8

Regards,

Keep in mind that the Sigma 17-35 is probably not the lens you have the zoom gear and extension for, they are probably the ones for the 17-35 AFS D Nikkor (one of the $1000+ lenses :shock:). The Sigma has a minimum focusing distance of 1.6 feet, thus you may have problems using it in the dome port. (I don't know this for sure, just some speculation).

For what you want, I would plump for the 18-35 and the 60 mm. The 18-35 can do the "wife beside sponge" up to biggish fish portrait, while the 60 can do medium size fish portrait downwards. You can probably get the two for about $650-700 by buying from places like B&H or Adorama.

The Nikon 12-24 looks like a great lens but it would take up all the budget. Even on EBay it's going for $1000. Looking like the 60mm for macro is the way to go. If one cannot afford Nikon lenses what's the next best brand?

The 15-30 Sigma is ok and has a more practical filter size than the 17-35.

18-35 on eBay is +/- $400.00 60mm Micro around $250.00

Bob, the Sigma 15-30 does NOT have a filter thread on the front and it does NOT take front mount filters.

If you can only afford two lenses, I recommend:

Either: Nikon 18-35 ($500) or Sigma 12-24 ($650)

MUST have: Nikkor 60mm Micro ($300)

To shoot those, you will want the flat port and the 8" dome port for your Aquatica.

HTH

James

Given I can't afford the new Nikon lens anyone willing to second james suggestion?

I see nothing wrong with James' suggestions but the Sigma 12-24 is new. Anyone had it underwater yet?

For wideangle, you do not HAVE to go with a zoom. You would be perfectly happy with the results from the Sigma 15mm fisheye - which goes for about $350.

Cheers

James

I mentioned nothing about a filter thread!

Actually, you said:

The 15-30 Sigma is ok and has a more practical filter size than the 17-35.

To which I reply: the Sigma 15-30 does not HAVE a filter thread. That's kind of important if you need to fit it with a diopter - you can't.

Cheers

James

Sigma 12-24 also lacks front filter threads, making it unusable with port combinations that require a diopter.

For one lens that does fish portraits and wide angle, get the 18-35mm Nikon.

I would recommend the Nikon 17-35mm since you already have the zoom gear and extension (this is a very long extension). But the lens is over $1000 even used. Just get the 18-35mm and different extension, zoom gear.

I shoot the 17-35mm behind a dome and get very good fish portraits at the 35mm end, along with decent wide angle.

I would also recommend the 105mm for macro over the 60mm. This is personal preference. If you want macro then its the best lens. If you want something for macro and some fish portraits, get the 60mm. It's cheaper and doesn't require an extension ring.

Regarding the Sigma 12-24, another thing to consider is the bulbus front element which tends to flair much more than the Nikon.

For econo wide angle you may also consider the Nikon 16 mm. still a bit "fishy" but it can be had on ebay at half the price of the 12-24. It also works much better for under/over shots. No port extension or diopter required.

The Sigma 14 is also nice and economical as well, but it requires a port entension and will flair a bit more than the Nikon 16 mm.

Note, both the Nikon 16 and the Sigma 14 will not accept fron mounted filters

Chris

I would definitely put the 60 as a must lens. I have the 105 but seldom use it; always going back to the 60. Though as noted many times it depends upon your shooting style. As far as wide angle I definitely think the 12-24 or 17-35 are better than a fixed lens. If they are beyond your budget a fixed super wide angle may be a better choice than some of the cheaper zooms. I have the Nikon 18 mm lens which has a great rep as a sharp lens but I think the 12-24 and 17-35 are just as sharp.

Even though I am getting the extension/focus gear for the 17-35nikon, just can’t pay the +$1000. So it is the Nikon 60mm and Nikon 18-35mm!

Sounds like you got a heck of a deal!

You're going to be very pleased with both the Aquatica housing and the Nikon D100. That combo offers amazing flexibity resulting in awsome quality pictures.

I use mostly the Nikon 12-24 and the Micro 60mm.

If I had to choose only one to get started, considering your criteria "wife on deck of wreck, large sponges, ect...""I would pick the 12-24mm.

Excellent WA and yet you can you get really close.

The 17-35 would be OK as a starter. You can always sell it later when your budget allows!

I also use Ike's D125's and I am very pleased with their performance.

Enjoy, and don't forget to breathe!!!!!!!!!!

Bob, the Sigma 15-30 does NOT have a filter thread on the front and it does NOT take front mount filters.

Wrong, James... Actually the front has a shade which allows to mount filters and serves also as a cover.

SIGMA claims that you can use it without loosing image quality when having digital cameras with a crop factor of 1.6 like the Canon 10D.

But generally you are right on not recommending this lense for uw-use.

It's very heavy and not doing a real inner-focus when zooming. We are

about to sell ours and save money for Canon 17-40L

Man can still dream though :roll:

Mhhh,... Lense or DEMA with James & Eric?

12-24 sounds like a great lens, but $$$$. Another thread follows some problems vetrans have with the Aquatica housing and this lens. Might be overwhelming for a rookie.