Need some advice on lenses for D70/Ikelite housing

I am planning on getting an ikelite housing and I am going to use my Tamron 90 for macro and I am thinking of getting the Sigma 15mm fisheye lens. Anybody out there, I am sure there is, using the lens and have any advice. I like the price for punch ration on the lens especially since it can be had for less than 400 bucks. Any examples??

Tony

Check out my article in the Features section. I specifically address you question, and there are sample photos.

In other words, I saw this question coming a mile off...:-)

Cheers

James

Ok James, I reread your article. But I'm still high on the learning curve.

So a question, forgetting about cost, which would you get if you wanted to shoot wide angle, and why?

Sigma 15mm fisheye lens?

Nikon or Sigma 12 - 24 lens?

James, looked thru your gallery and it is awesome. We have spoke a few times in dpreview before. Read your article before I posted the question I was just hoping to see some shots done with that lens underwater. Shots done with that lens topside are quite awesome as well if done correctly. I already have a 15-30 sigma but it won't fit in the housing that I was thinking of purchasing . The 12-24 I think is too close to my sigma so I don't want to reproduce that focal length that's why I think the 15 fisheye will probably fit the bill. Personally, if I didn't have a topside wide angle I would probably go for the 12-24, but I do.

Tony

Tony, if I had a 15-30....I'd consider the Nikon 10.5mm and really go wide

Karl

Tony, if I had a 15-30....I'd consider the Nikon 10.5mm and really go wide

If I had the 15-30mm (and it is not going to fit in the housing) I'd put it on Ebay and buy the 12-24mm

M

Well guys just can't see spending that kind of money right now when I am considering this housing. The nikon lens is going to run over $1k. The fishey will run around 350 which is much more palatable. I really like the 15-30 for topside usage and have learned how to use it to overcome its warmness.. Anything wider is going to be a little gimicky, ie the 10.5. The 12-24 is a little out of the price range at least until I get the housing wet a few times.

Tony

Good wide angle underwater requires a very good wide angle zoom. Save your money for the 12-24. You will never be sorry. If you can't afford it get the 10.5 or a used 17-35. Spending money on other lenses means you will lose that money when you replace them.

Tony,

The Nikon 12-24mm is indeed a great choice (for BOTH underwater and above). I used one with my Nikon D100 and was happy although I think the zooming underwater is a bit overstated.......

I tried BOTH the Nikon 16mm Fisheye and Sigma 15mm Fisheye before Nikon adapted the 165mm body design to the 10.5mm for DSLR bodies. You are also hearing from a former film SLR shooter who ALWAYS bought brand lenses (as in Nikon for Nikon, Canon for Canon, etc.)

With all DSLR camera chips except the Canon EOS 1D MKII and 1DS having a magnification factor I've found many after market brands, especially the Sigma 15mm Fisheye lens to perform quite well. The Sigma 15mm FE EX focuses to 5.9" (!!!!!) and being a fisheye produces images somewhat wider than 1.5X (on your Nikon body) approximately a field of view around 19-20mm. Plenty wide and you can get close not needing diopters behind Ikelite's standard dome port. Minimal curvature of straight lines near the edges which can be "de-fished" with software or simply cropped out if found objectionable.

The Nikon mount models are still only around $375.00 while Canon mounts have jumped slightly (I paid $410.00 recently for a Canon mount to shoot on my Digital Rebel.)

I'll have a new gallery up soon from a recent Bahamas trip with lots of images taken with the Sigma 15mm FE lens. Visit my link below where many of the White Shark photos were taken with this lens on a Nikon D100, plus a few from other galleries.

Hope this helps,

David Haas

www.pbase.com/dhaas

Amazing images you have on your pbase site David. That Great White series is pretty awesome. I don't know what to think about the solarized images they look cool but I bet the originals look better. It would be real nice to be able to look at all these lenses in person but unfortunately I live in the middle of the US with no "real camera stores". Therefore, I have to make a leap of faith and order lenses. The defishing software I hear is freeware but after looking at some topside shots I think the look is very good. Plus there is minimal curve if horizon is kept in the middle of the lens. From what I have heard the lens will give about 130 degrees underwater maybe someone else can comment. As was mentioned by David everything from the front of the housing is in focus. I dunno sounds pretty good to me.

Tony

Thanks for all the good answers guys!

Critter: If you only have <$400 to spend then I recommend the Sigma 15mm fisheye. With a good dome it will yield results very similar to what you would expect from a Nikonos V with the 15mm Nikonos lens. Good close focus, sharp corners, and not much barrel distortion.

Peter: if cost wasn't a factor at all, I would always shoot the 12-24 lens, because it is NOT a fisheye. It's a rectilinear wideangle zoom that yields great results, even when there are straight lines in the frame. And I DID zoom it a lot on the Fiji trip, although usually at either 12mm or 24mm

Cheers

James

James its not that I can't afford the lens. I can probably afford it more than a lot of people. I just dive maybe two or three times a year and if I get a lens it needs to be able to work well above water for me to be palatable. The way you guys talk about it it seems like I better seriously look at the lens before I make my decision and if I do get this lens get rid of the sigma.

We just got back from Cozumel two weeks ago and this completely solidified my decision to go digital. My strobe was set on TTL with my Nik V set on Auto. I properly exposed my shots and all of them looked like the strobe never went off even though I saw it flash. So either the TTL wasn't working right or the thing was synched. If I spend several thousand dollars on a trip then come home with worthless images then the cost thing becomes moot.

Below is a shot my daughter took with her Nik/105/20mm/Full power/don't know her Fstop. I swear those angel fish weren't cloned...

Tony

Hmm couldn't get tha attachment to work...

Tony

Tony,

While everyone who's had the 12-24mm touts it as a great optic I have to confess to using the Sigma 15mm FE with it's <6" focusing more than the 12-24mm...Being super wide the 15mm FE forces you to get close and fill the frame resulting in sharper photos (shoot through less water, the underwater photographic rule of most importance

I personally like a bit of "weirdness" to my photos and fisheye lenses used underwater can be undetectable without straight lines or if you place a subject close enough to pick up curvature.....If I didn't tell folks what lens I used most wouldn't be able to tell.....plus it ain't the pot, it's the cook

One other thing I really like is not having to add gears and/or sleeves required with a zoom lens....Ikelite's compact SLR-DC housing has an improved gearing for the zoom with larger drive gear resulting in a pretty short throw from one end of a zoom lense's range to the other (depends on lens of course, but the 12-24mm isn't very far.)

Hope all this helps.....

Dave Haas

Tony,

Forgot......Visit www.bythom.com for Thom Hogan's take on the Sigma 15mm, used ABOVE water......

He seems to be able to use a Fisheye lens on a DLSR and get super wide photos that look great.....

You can too

Dave Haas

Thanks Dave I had read the review on the 15 and apparently Thom likes it for what it does. I kinda of like the keep it simple stupid theory myself. That's one reason I always shot with the 15mm in front of my nikonos. Its hard to screw up a shot with it unless you don't get close. If you think you are close get closer is what I have always been told.

Tony

Interesting discussion and some valid points were made by everyone contributing.

I have both lenses for my D70/ikelite but have only used the 12-24mm underwater so far.

The reason I haven't used the 15mm underwater yet is related to the low end prices I saw quoted. I origionally bought one from Wells Digital for $380 because they had the best price by a longshot and claimed to have it in stock. Two months later and 100 complaints to customer service I still had no lens, despite having the charge on my card. I finally cancelled and bought it from B&H for $440 w shipping and they delivered right away. So $440 is more realistic for this lens. Never buy from Wells, they won't answer the phone and never get back to you. They make promises and never keep them.

Both lenses are superb but they are very different.

The 12-24 is great because:

very fast focusing

gives you a zoom range and a chance at taking macro/smaller subjects in situ that you don't have with the 15mm. Because of the fisheye effect the 15mm is actually wider than the 12-24mm at 12mm. The angle of view is only 99 degrees at 12mm whereas the 15mm is 120 degrees. I actually zoom the 12-24mm a lot because you never know what you will find and having another duplicate zoom lens won't do you any good when you are underwater.

straight lines. This is actually a good argument for topside use more than underwater. So if you really want something to use topside go with this one.

I'm still trying to figure out if this lens is better with the diopter or without it. So far I have used it with the +4 diopter and have gotten sharp pictures. But my one opportunity to test it without the diopter was flawed because I had the AF/M switch on the lens switched to M by accident. The minimum focusing distance is right at the borderline. If it turns out to require the diopter that would rule out split shots with this lens.

The 15mm has:

a very close focusing. Should be great for split level shots

Wider than the 12-24mm

larger aperture for smaller DOF

Fisheye effect can be fun if that is the effect you want

much slower focusing

fixed focal length and wider too so good luck with pseudo/macro/cheating on skittish creatures.

I have them both because I couldn't decide. I'm going to try to get them both into the 5503.50 port, possibly by removing the shade even. If this doesn't work, I'll probably regret buying both. It turns out for me that what lenses I can bring is limited by the number of ports required.

UWphotoNewbie Re "much slower focusing" for the 15mm fisheye. I'm still learning. What do you mean by slower focusing i.e. what is focusing, the camera or the lens? Or more to the point, does this slower focusing effect ones ability to capture the moment e.g. as in shutter lag?

Sorry for the weird question. But if I knew the real question I would probably know the real answer.

Yes, probably according to specs the Nikon 12-24mm MAY be a tad faster on the AF than the Sigma 15mm FE lens.

I've found this has more to do with what camera body you have. Nikon D100, D70 and Fuji S2 don't have the super fastest CAM module (I think CAM 900 same as was in the Nikon N90s ?) but generally work fine underwater if you are comfortable with AF.

My Canon Digital Rebel has the same AF speed as the Canon 10D (and even the Canon EOS 1DS according to Popular Photography test last year!) and the Sigma 15mm focuses fine on it. I regularly use it in the 7 point AF mode letting the camera lock in whatever point closest it can grab. I DO look to see if it selected an AF point WAY behind my subject. But with the depth of field of this lens has it hasn't seemed to be a problem getting in focus photos.

I still contend most of us don't get out and use our cameras enough above water to be really comfortable with the AF points, composing quickly and letting the camera do the things it can do automatically. Then concentrating on composition....i.e. being able to think underwater like we do for land shooting.....

Food for thought.....

Dave Haas

The 15mm lens uses the camera's internal motors to autofocus.

The 12-24mm lens uses ultra-sonic motors (USM) built into the lens to focus the lens. This is much faster and also quieter.

The focusing with any non USM (ultra-sonic-motor) lens is fast by P&S standards but not as fast as those with USM (or silent wave motors, USM is a trademark).

Since you need the camera to focus the lens before you can take a sharp picture, this in effect will increase your shutter lag. As I learned on my first DSLR trip a month ago, this applies to fast moving fish as well as immobile macro subjects because its very hard to stay still yourself in powerful surge.

Yes, probably according to specs the Nikon 12-24mm MAY be a tad faster on the AF than the Sigma 15mm FE lens.

I haven't checked the specs but this is the impression I got when using the lens topside. I wouldn't have thought that this would be an issue for WA, but I think it matters more for close up subjects than those farther away (the way you generally use WA underwater versus the way you generally use WA topside). I don't have any scientific testing but after having used the 12-24mm it seemed annoying.