New Article Posted - Selecting Lenses for your DSLR

Hi Folks,

I've just posted a new "Wiseman Feature" article at:

http://www.wetpixel.com/module-pagesetter-...-1-pid-46.phtml

Selecting Lenses for Your New Digital SLR

All comments and feedback appreciated.

Enjoy!

James

Thank you James!

I'm eventually getting the D70 (April) and was wondering what would be a good option to replace my 20mm Nikkor with for that 100 degrees. One question though, do you know how the Sigma 15mm compare to the 20mm Nikkor in quality?

/Stefan

Good article, as someone that going to buy the D70 (probably) in the near future and his next task is to put it under water (still need the approval of the authorized authority :? ) I fount it very helpful.

Well done James............how about camera menu settings for the next lesson?

Karl

Good article James, but I strongly disagree with your recommendation of the Sigma/Nikor fisheyes. For anyone shooting Nikon mounts, the DX fisheye should be their choice. I realize that the Sigma fisheye might be a little less costly, but the angle of coverage is not even close to 180 degrees on DX sensor-based cameras. I can no longer accept fisheye distortion on a lens that yields less coverage than my 12-24. IMO new users should milk their kit lenses until they can afford a 12-24 (sigma or nikon) or true DX fisheye.

Thank you James, I will have the D70 kit soon and housing to replace my Nikonos kit. I had made up my mind to buy the 10.5 DX fisheye and the 60 mm micro. I dont now what housing to get. Should i wait with buying lenses until i know what housing i will have ? I saw Nexus are soon selling housing with a special domeport for the 10.5 DX and a port for the 15 mm Sigma. It`s easy to get confused and your article kind of confused me a littlebit more, in a good way. I will use the kit in poor visibility water most of the time.

Hi Gang,

Thanks for the feedback on the article, I appreciate everyone's perspective.

First off, let me make some clarifications:

I show the Nikkor 16mm fisheye in the pic. This is NOT the lens that I am recommending for beginners to buy. I recommend the Sigma 15mm fisheye as it's about $300 less.

I am not recommending the 18-35ED lens either - even though I have some sample photos taken with that lens. I recommend the 18-70 since it's less $$ and has a longer focal length range.

Lastly, for Kasey - I did not recommend the 10.5mm fisheye because a fullframe fisheye is not really a "beginner" lens. It is a "niche" lens which happens to fill an underwater photographer's bag nicely. Think about the challenges of shooting a true fullframe fisheye Kasey - and think like a beginner. Think about shots of itty-bitty fish, fins in the photos, and very poorly lit shots. Aiming and using strobes to light such a broad canvas is not easy... Plus, the 10.5DX is $300 more expensive than the Sigma 15mm.

Lastly, the 12-24DX is an awesome lens, and should be a part of every underwater photographer's arsenal eventually. But I can not in good conscience recommend a lens to beginners that costs >$1,000. That's more than the camera costs!

Other thoughts are appreciated, so keep 'em coming. If you're still confused nordic, post here again - I don't really understand what you're confused about.

Cheers

James

Thanks James,

Great article with a very level-headed perspective. Your input is always a big help.

I purchased the Nikkor 60 mm macro for my D70 at your suggestion a while before it arrived. Is it possible to use this with a dome port as well? You reccomend a flat port in your article. I will be getting the Ikelite dome that matches the kit lens. Is it possible to use just one port for both of these? I'd like to save cost/space if possible. What is the disadvantage of using a macro lens behind a dome? Do I need a closeup diopter?

Thanks for your advice.

Is the the nikkor 60mm micro substantially better than the 50mm 1.8 for underwater purposes?

James, I have a 10.5mm fisheye and I agree with you that it is not a beginners lens. Fisheyes require a technique of their own, and that is something to learn later.

Alex

I agree, but still think the 16/15mm is a lens that will leave beginners wanting more. Especially once you've looked through it behind a full frame camera.

Perhaps the 18-70 would carry a beginner for quite a while, until ready for the 12-24 or 10.5.

In my view, the most expensive part of this hobby is upgrading to what you really wanted in the 1st place. I've done it many times - E20 to D100, 16.5mm to 10.5mm, Aquatica to Seacam (this one is still in progress). This is a tremendous expense and I'd recommend newbies hold off until they can afford what they really want.

Kasey

In my view, the most expensive part of this hobby is upgrading to what you really wanted in the 1st place.

I certainly agree with you here, Kasey. One advantage to the 16mm is that it might end up being useful in the future if full frame sensors become more common. And the 10.5mm becomes redundant!

Being more realistic, I rather like the 16mm on my D100. This am I was working on a picture list for my next trip and I found that quite a few shots required the 16mm rather than the 10.5mm on the D100.

Alex

Nitro: the 50mm f1.8 is a topside portrait lens for studio use. It is not a macro lens like the 60mm and will not render a high reproduction ratio.

Cheers

James

You can use the 60 mm with a dome port. I know several pros who insist this is the only way to go. You don't get the extra magnification that a flat port will give you; but your colors with be more accurate and I believe your image will be sharper (noticeable I think only in a 16 x 20 blow up).

I would have to say that the 60 is the one must have lens if you use a nikon mount camera UW.

If you can swing it. I would definitely recommend spending your pennies on a 12 - 24 vs a fish eye and the kit lens. Due to the wide angle of the the 12 to 24 it's effectiveness as an on land walk around lens is limited.

If you did get the 12-24 though you could get rich off all the great shots you will get and then could afford the 2.8 17-55 as your walk around lens. This looks to be a killer lens for land use.

{quote}

If you did get the 12-24 though you could get rich off all the great shots you will get and then could afford the 2.8 17-55 as your walk around lens. This looks to be a killer lens for land use.

the 17-55 might be great for fish and sharks as well

True, but the 17 - 35 will be better as it focuses closer. The 12 - 24 will be better yet. If you go beyond the 24 mm focal length because your subject is too far away and your image will be compromised by the filtering effect of that extra water filter on color and sharpness.

When I was in Guadalupe shooting the sharks I shot as many pictures as possible at the 12 mm focal length. Others were at the 24 mm focal length as the sharks wouldn't come any closer. Most of those shots were inferior due to lack of sharpness due to the amount of water the light had to travel through. And the lack of color was noticeable even though the subjects were mostly grey. I found as I have found many times before that a few pictures taken at your widest focal length are better than many taken at longer focal lengths. The only good use I've ever found for focal lengths longer than 35 mm were for small subjects that you can get within 5 feet of and still use that longer focal length. The use of macro lenses being the logical end result of this method.

There is also a new Sigma 12-24 , someone I really trust on his opinion said to me that its a new version and its much better then the first version and he was very satisfied with it.

well...... I got a 16mm fish eye ( Nikon ) and generally, it takes nice shots ( and I am new to wide / fish eyes ) . As most UW environs dont have straight lines, its hard to notice the curvature.

60 mm with a dome as suggested above , not sure I would buy into that. The strength of the 60 is its macro capability + can do some wider shots thant the 105. Doing macro shots with a dome would be interesting ( and costly ) indeed. (scratch).

personal favourites are 105, 105+2xTC and the 16mm for wide.

{quote}

If you did get the 12-24 though you could get rich off  all the great shots you will  get and then could afford the 2.8 17-55 as your walk around lens. This looks to be a killer lens for land use.

Has anyone tried the 17-55 yet? With a 14.2 inch minimum focus I assume it requires a diopter for most domes. Just looking at the specs it seems kind of marginal for UW, but would love to hear some real world experience with it.

Interesting.

What would be a compelling reason to buy the 17-55DX as opposed to the 17-35 AFS? Are the extra 20mm at the <edit>long end worth buying a DX lens that won't work on a full-frame camera?

Sincerely,

James Wiseman