What Lenses?

Cheers Alex, I will look into it

Andrew, I am loving the long nose hawk! I am still yet to find one of them!

Up until last year, I had only seen them on a bommie at Ribbon Reef #10 on the GBR. I was in Borneo last year and they appear to be very common around Sipidan Island. I would have easily seen 100 on one drift dive. Each large sea fan had 2-3.

I am not as fortunate enough to have visited those places yet, but they are in the red sea which I have dived quite a few times, but yet to find one. I will be looking again in June this year

I have been looking at the 60mm macro lense and notice that there are 2, can anyone explain the difference between the 2? Is the more expensive really worth the extra cash?

One 60 mm has ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to overcome chromatic aberration and is a tad sharper.

The new version is about $150 more expensive then the D lens and focuses slightly faster but there are still an awful lot of D lenses in use and most of us are perfectly happy with it.

The older D version works fine with a Teleconverter while the newer AF-S lens really struggles to focus with one.

The newer lens has internal focus so doesn't extend so with some manufacturers a shorter port can be used.

Cheers,

Jim.

The older D version works fine with a Teleconverter while the newer AF-S lens really struggles to focus with one.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

Question: What would be the advantage of going with a 60 mm and a teleconverter versus going with a 105 mm??

Question: What would be the advantage of going with a 60 mm and a teleconverter versus going with a 105 mm??

I use both. You can use the same port extension with either 60mm+TC or 105mm. It's a tradeoff in either case:

- 60mm with 1.4mm TC focuses faster and more accurately in low light. You don't necessarily need a focus light with it unless deep and/or at night. It's really the equivalent of 84mm DX though (126mm FX). 60mm focuses closer with or without the 1.4 TC.

- 105mm has VR which is nice although of dubious value above 1/60 second. Also, it's more magnification than a 60mm with TC (157.5mm FX). It struggles to focus unless the light is very good. If you have a good focus light it's great. A lot of folks like to manually focus the 105mm VR.

- One additional bonus is the 1.4 TC works great on the Tokina 10-17mm too giving you yet another option.

Both have their place. 60mm with TC is cheaper to get into and gives you a lot of options. The 105mm VR is a great lens though.

cheers,

John

For folks that are using the 4" mini-domes for the tokina 10-17, have you ever tried using the 60mm macro in the mini dome? I've been using the Zen DP-100, which I'm very happy with and am wanting to bite the bullet and buy my first true macro lens. Reading the specs it looks like the newer 60mm AF-S lens would fit in the Zen dome and allow me to get by for a while unitl I'm able to pick up a dedicated macro port, for the real close work.

Just curious if anyone can confirm if this is possible or not.

-Erin

I have used this as has BentC, worth having a look back through some threads. It will fit and does work but not ideal as you may tend to bump the glass into the rock surrounding the subject!

Thanks Alex, totally understood that it's not ideal for true close-in macro shooting, but seems like a decent bridging option to allow for some flexibility for slightly larger subjects. The tokina is a really great lens, but in some locations I've found myself wishing I had another option and I think the 60mm, in the mini dome will give me that. Thanks for confirming that it's at least an option.

That helps me answer two questions I've been struggling with 60 vs 105 and if 60 AF-S vs AF-D. I have no doubt I'll be picking up the macro port in the very near future but it's nice to know it's not an absolute requirement day 1.

Thanks

If you are limited to 2 lenses and want to shoot Oceanics, as your post implies, then you will find the 60 too long for them. The Tokina will be of use at the 17mm end (depending on how comfortable you are close up to them). Generally I find mid range zooms such as the 17-55 or the 17-35 used on DX format, are good for mid sized sharks. If your kit lens is an 18-55, this may well be a good option, although you may need a close up lens depending on the size of your dome (I've never used the 18-55 underwater but other wetpixellers might have). Wide rectilinear zooms such as the 12-24 will also be of great use (moreso than the Tokina when it comes to shooting Oceanics).

Sorry, Steve, but...

... mid-range zooms can be disappointing behind dome ports. The 17-55mm is not as good as it is on the surface and the kit zooms are pretty poor. Things can be pretty idiosyncratic, too: the cheaper16-35mm zoom is better underwater on FX bodies than the more expensive 17-35mm, the 12-24mm is really difficult to use.

Sharks are difficult, but in the end there's nothing to replace getting close with a lens like the Tokina 10-17mm. Shots taken with mid-range zooms and 50-60mm lenses will never compete. That's why the right place and the right crew, along with, maybe, a rebreather, is more important than a zoom or mid-range lens for that great shark shot...

Reading the specs it looks like the newer 60mm AF-S lens would fit in the Zen dome and allow me to get by for a while unitl I'm able to pick up a dedicated macro port, for the real close work.

 

Just curious if anyone can confirm if this is possible or not.

 

-Erin

For sharks, you may be better with a Kenko x1.4 on a fisheye lens with a 20mm extension to the mini-dome, although if you're going to zoom you will need an extended zoom gear.

Tim