Lens choice for Socorro

I have just booked myself on a 9 day liveaboard to Socorro on the Rocio Del Mar. Leaving March 2013.

i wonder what lenses to bring.

I use a D90, and I have the Sigma 17-70, and Tokina 10-17

My question is, Will I find any use for the 17-70 ? is the 10-17 enough for the whole trip, or do I need a new lens, like the Nikon 12-24 ?

I dont expect I need any macro lens ?

Thanks

Steen

Last time I was there I shot both those lenses on a D300 and they worked fine. Since then, I've gravitated to shooting the 10-17 + a Kenko 1.4 instead of the 17-70 as it is far sharper. You won't have the reach, but you really want to get closer anyway. You definately do not want the 12-24, doesn't focus that close.

Here's a couple of shots for comparison:

17-70:

Manta Eye.2 by Pixel Letch, on Flickr

10-17:

Manta Head shot by Pixel Letch, on Flickr

Jack

Thanks for that info. I guess I'm covered.

Nice photos, especially the first one.

Steen

At a pinch, and unless the visibility is spectacular, you could do very nicely with just the Tokina 10-17mm.

I shot everything with a Nikon 10.5mm and a teleconverter when I was in the Revillagigedos Is.

I dived from Solmar V. It's a great place...

That hammer is lovely Tim!

I agree with Alex, what a beautiful hammerhead!

I agree that the 10-17 + a teleconverter would be what I'd take. Maybe shoot the 60mm micro behind a dome for sharks...

Jack

 

...... You definately do not want the 12-24, doesn't focus that close.

 

Jack

Hi Jack...could you explain the comment about the 12-24 please? Granted, it has other issues (sharp corners, etc) but It focuses to 1 foot and I would think with the shots that you showed (large animals) that is way more than enough? Am headed there in 2014....and am just curious....

thx

Tim,

what dome/housing were you using with your 10.5mm/teleconverter combination?

thx

Mainly very bad corner issues and general sharpness. IMHO, you really want a lens that focuses to about 9 or 9.5" behind a dome. It will shoot ok in blue water, I jhust think there are better choices.

Jack

Hi Jack...could you explain the comment about the 12-24 please? Granted, it has other issues (sharp corners, etc) but It focuses to 1 foot and I would think with the shots that you showed (large animals) that is way more than enough? Am headed there in 2014....and am just curious....

 

thx

I use to use the Nikkor 12-24 with a +4 diopter in a 170 mm port. I now use the Tonk 10-17 w & w/o 1.4x TC in a 4.33" dome (The Bare Dome). Much better IMHO.

Bob

Ditto for the 12-24 Nexus setup. The +4 diopter enables lens to focus close & also sharpens edges. I've always had good luck with that lens. But I also now use the 10-17 with mini dome. This is much more convenient for travel & gives great results.

Again, better choices out there. A good quality 77mm (?) +4 diopter is going to cost $150+ or so. And possibly introduce some abberations and chroma to the shots.

I love the lens above water, just not my choice uw. YMMV.

Jack

thx for the answers on the 12-24 everyone!

thx for the answers on the 12-24 everyone!

if you're thinking of getting a rectilinear WA lens, i'd suggest to forget about the Nikon 12-24 and get the 10-24 (also Nikon) instead. It focusses closer (no need for diopters), has a bigger range and in the range from 12-24 it's supposed to be as sharp as the 12-24 mm f/4.0. It's also cheaper and slightly lighter. Only drawback is that it's not a f/4.0 over the full range but f/3.5-4.5 (is that a drawback actually??).

cheers, Udo

Can someone elaborate more on this topic please? I have a Canon 7D with a 10-17 and a 4" mini-dome, and I'm heading to Socorro at the end of January. I'm expecting that the 10-17 alone will be fine for manta since they typically get so close, but for the sharks and whales (if I'm so lucky), I'm wondering if I should pick up a 1.4 TC since I don't expect to get as close. I get the impression that the TC won't simply magnify by 1.4, but I'm not sure why and waht it will exactly do. Can you explain further and give me a recommendation? Thanks.

Hey Johnny,

I have been to the Socorro Islands and found the 10-17 to be ideal for most circumstances. I am of the opinion that if the shark is too far away it's probably not worth taking a pic in the first place. They may not come as close as in the Bahamas but you may get a few passes. The Mantas came close enough that I had to duck my head several times. The more you seem to ignore the more curious they get.

Tom

Thanks Tom. That's pretty much what I was thinking, but the idea of being able to shoot humpbacks....they'd be worth shooting regardless (I shot video in Tonga). But I don't know if it's worth it, I'll probably just stick with the 10-17 and hope any big stuff finds me attractive.

I went on the Nautilus Explorer trip. I don't think I removed my 16-35mm the entire time. Maybe only for the Tokina 10-17mm.

www.matthewramaley.com

One other thing. The challenge I gave myself was shooting a manta and getting the top/bottom lighitng balanced on a frontal shot. Near the surface, the sunlight will dapple their back beautifully, but the underbelly can be dark so I spent some time trying to get my strobes to fire up from beneath the dome at just the right power. I did this with white pointers in South Australia.

You will have mantas for hours, so you can get plenty of practice. Once I got the lighting balanced, I never got one of the animals to swim directly at me because they start to ascend from a few meteres out to fly over your head. The closer to the surface you are, the further out they start their ascent glide path.

Good luck!

Matt