Ports/lenses D100

Well, it looks like I may pull the trigger on a D100 rather than on the Fuji S2 - because I have this love affair with Light and Motion housings, and specifically "The ROC" strobe controller like I currently have on my Titan/Oly E20.

So - I am considering a D100, the L&M Titan housing for it, and some lenses:

The 12-24mm f/4 G

The 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 G

Both of these are the AF-S and ED models.

Does anyone have thoughts on these two lenses for UW use? I would LOVE the 17-35mm 2.8, but $1500 is just too much for me to spend on a single lens right now.

At some point, I would also like to pick up a macro lens, a fisheye, and something long for topside.

I would like to keep the number of different ports I have to buy to a minimum, so if there is a way to combine these lenses in such a way that I only need 1 or 2 ports, that would be LOVELY.

I am BRAND-NEW to the world of interchangeable ports, so I have no basis for knowing what I need. I am guessing a dome port will be required for the 12-24 lens, and for whatever fisheye I go with. Can I use a dome port with the 24-85 as well? Or is a flat port a possibility with the 12-24?

Any other thoughts? Other lenses I should consider?

I live in the Pacific Northwest and dive a LOT in Puget Sound and BC, but I also travel quite a bit, and would like to keep the kit as tidy and compact as possible.

Thanks so much!!!!

-d

The 12-24mm will be wonderful for wide angle. I am not familiar with the Titan port system. Talk to the folks who sold you the housing or will sell you the housing. The folks at Backscatter or Ryan and Underwater Photo can help you with the port setup. You will probably need an extension with the dome and a zoom gear. You definitely want this lens behind a dome port.

The 24-85mm is best suited for land use. At the equivalent of 36mm film equivalent, it is of limited use underwater. It could be housed behind either a dome or flat port, but a dome would be preferable. It will also require an extension of some sort and a diopter.

I would suggest a macro lens instead of the 24-85mm. The 60mm Nikon will work well for most subjects. Just a recommendation, but start with macro and get comfortable with it. Then move to wide angle. Once you've mastered each of these two lenses, you will have an idea of what else you might add to the arsenal.

I agree that the 60mm would be more useful than the 24-85G but I have used the 24-85G with both a dome and a flat port and it works nicely. Ultimately it would be nice to have a midrange zoom that can get to 1:2 equivalent or better OR a midrange zoom behind a dome that starts around 17mm. The 24-85G works great but doesn't provide either of these things. Get the 24-85G if you must but start with the 12-24 and the 60.

I totally agree, if I were diving where you were diving, I'd be using a 60mm as much as anything.

The 24-85 has its place, but will probably be made obsolete by the 17-55.

Light & Motion uses its longest extension ring for the 12-24. They also recomend a +2 diopter with that lens.

At this time, there is no Light & Motion mid-range zoom support.

I use the same housing and camera in Puget Sound, and would have to agree with the above advice. The 60mm Macro Lens works great in our low-viz waters. The ROC strobe Controls are a pleasure to use, especially when shooting macro. You can fine-tune your strobe power very easily (but you knew that :wink: ).

The 12-24 is also an awesome lens, but Wide-Angle work is much more difficult when you have no visibility to work with. Both lenses require different ports and extension rings, and as Ryan states above, the extension ring for the 12-24 is VERY long.

I also use the 16mm Fisheye, which is very nice, and uses a very short extension ring with the Dome Port. Just be sure your focusing gears are on tight, as mine have fallen off a few times.

Boydski

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Back in the good ol' days when I shot film, I had an F5 with a 105 micro lens for it - it remains the sharpest lens I have ever used. While I doubt that the 105micro would be a good choice for digital macro (except for the teensiest subjects), does anyone have an opinion on how the 60mm compares in terms of sharpness to the 105?

Thanks again for all the feedback!

-d

I wouldn't dismiss the 105 mm as an excellent general lens for digital macro. The range of optimum subject sizes is different than it is on a full-frame SLR, of course, but the extra working distance on the 105 is very useful, and you can still cover quite a variety of subjects under most conditions..

Re: your original posting, the 24-85 mm lens is an excellent general workhorse topside, but I was never been able to make it work successfully underwater with my film SLR housing. With a digital SLR the problems are worse - the wide end isn't really wide enough, while the long macro end (up to 1:2) never seemed to generate decent images. I was using the lens in a dome port.

The 12-24 DX, on the other hand, is truly a magic lens for w/a, if you can find a way to spring for the bucks.

When I shoot macro, I still use the 105mm, sometimes with a close-up lens attached.

The difference is that in the old film days, you could still get some decent non-macro shots, including fish portraits (it helps to have two SS200's).

It's much harder with the 105mm. The fish have to be 33% smaller.

The 60mm is still the most versatile. I use it on all night dives. It is sharper than the 105mm, except at infinity.

I agree with scorpio fish the 60mm is sharper for Uw work and the range, in my opinion, is more flexible. The 105mm is a fine lens and still is my top side bug lens because of the greater work distance, but I'm just back from a trip using both with a D100 setup and I have to go for the 60mm for ease of focusing and depth of field .

You might seriously consider using the Subal FE2 dome on your Titan. It will allow you to use the 10.5 fisheye, in addition to the 12-24 (extension needed). From the appearance of the LMI dome, I don't think it'll work with the 10.5.

The 10.5 is totally cool and you will eventually want it. It is also less expensive than the 12-24, and doesn't call for a diopter. Personally, I may never shoot my 12-24 underwater again.

The Aquatica dome would also be a logical choice, at a much lower price.

Kasey is right, the Titan Dome Port is not at all usable with the 10.5. Another glass dome is in development...