Few questions regarding lenses

Hi all,

Currently using a Nikon D7100 in an Aquatica housing. I have the Tokina 10-17 w/ 8" dome and Nikon 105 G and macro port. Few questions for people since no info available on Aquaticas site for a couple of these lenses to cover some of the gap in my range over my next trip.

1) Currently I have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG, has anyone used this underwater and if so what were your thoughts? Alternatively, looking at adding the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 contemporary to the mix.

2) Has anyone used the Tamron 60 mm or Sigma 50 mm macros? Thoughts on these lenses? If the Tamron what focus gear and extension did you use?

Thanks in advance for the feedback.

When I was shooting DX (D7000) I had the 105 and the older Nikon 60mm 2.8D, which worked great in the same port my 105 was in as long as I didn't attach a wet diopter to the port. It's a really great lens, sharp, accurate focus, and can be had for a fairly low price.

This was in Lembeh, 2014 - D7000, 60mm 2.8D

Nudibranch - Chromodoris willani by James Reynolds, on Flickr

Hi John

I think lots of folks don't worry about a lens gap.

On DX I used to shoot the Tokina 10-17 and the Nikkor 60mm and 105mm. On my D800 - which is DX - I just use a Sigma 15mm and the Nikkor 105mm and, occasionally, a Nikkor 16-35 but for the most part the 15mm does the trick.

I tried the Nikkor 16-85mm on one trip in my DX days but gave up on that. It was neither, errr, fish nor fowl.

I do use the Sigma 17-70 under an Aquatica 8-inch dome sometimes, though with a Canon 7DmkII rather than Nikon. I like the lens because at its widest, it is almost as wide as my fisheye, but it can also go tighter for when expected sharks and mantas aren't getting as close as you would like.

-Mark

I have heard a few people speak very highly of that 17-70 on Nikon.

I have a D7000 and Aquatica housing. I've used the Sigma 17-70 for a few years with the 8" dome. It's my "scouting" lens when I don't know what to expect. I probably use it for 50% of my dives, then split the rest between a Tokina 10-17 FE, Nikkor 60mm and 105mm. I'm using the 60 mm less and less these days. If I'm going in for a macro subject, I'll go 105 and carry a +10 wet diopter.

IMHO the 17-70 is a good all around lens that will do decent WA and OK macro.

Just my 2 psi.

Harry

Hi all thanks for all of the feedback.

When I was shooting DX (D7000) I had the 105 and the older Nikon 60mm 2.8D, which worked great in the same port my 105 was in as long as I didn't attach a wet diopter to the port. It's a really great lens, sharp, accurate focus, and can be had for a fairly low price.

 

 

Appreciate the feedback!

Hi John

 

I think lots of folks don't worry about a lens gap.

 

On DX I used to shoot the Tokina 10-17 and the Nikkor 60mm and 105mm. On my D800 - which is DX - I just use a Sigma 15mm and the Nikkor 105mm and, occasionally, a Nikkor 16-35 but for the most part the 15mm does the trick.

 

I tried the Nikkor 16-85mm on one trip in my DX days but gave up on that. It was neither, errr, fish nor fowl.

Ya I know a lot don't, however I know the mix of shooting I have enjoyed in the past. The one area where I felt I wasn't covering my own shooting preferences (e.g. fish portraits and pelagics) wasn't well covered when I only have a 10-17 and 105 macro.

I do use the Sigma 17-70 under an Aquatica 8-inch dome sometimes, though with a Canon 7DmkII rather than Nikon. I like the lens because at its widest, it is almost as wide as my fisheye, but it can also go tighter for when expected sharks and mantas aren't getting as close as you would like.

 

-Mark

Thanks Mark on the feedback, exactly the type of situation I was thinking of.

I have heard a few people speak very highly of that 17-70 on Nikon.

I have a D7000 and Aquatica housing. I've used the Sigma 17-70 for a few years with the 8" dome. It's my "scouting" lens when I don't know what to expect. I probably use it for 50% of my dives, then split the rest between a Tokina 10-17 FE, Nikkor 60mm and 105mm. I'm using the 60 mm less and less these days. If I'm going in for a macro subject, I'll go 105 and carry a +10 wet diopter.

 

IMHO the 17-70 is a good all around lens that will do decent WA and OK macro.

 

Just my 2 psi.

 

Harry

Thanks for the input Harry, seems we have some similar thoughts on the usage of Sigma 17-70.

Hi john

Let's go back to basics when shooting underwater.

Take as much water out of the equasion as you can between you and your subject. It matters not how many MEGAPIXELS one has if there's lots of Water based debris between you and your subject, image clarity will be poor forcing you to spend lots of time in photoshop attempting to correct it.

Move closer to your subject rather than zooming in. Most modern lenses such as 10-17 or 12-24 allows one to get close enough to force out that H2O between you and your subject. You might find that housing the 17-70 will work great for you with what ever it is your looking for in your images however you also run the risk of being "lazy" and zooming in.

I find that 12-24 is perfection for me. I have used 18-70mm underwater but I generally used it when jumping into the unknown for the first time and my focus is on items of equipment a diver is using.

All you need to do is give it try , grab an extension ring and give it a go. If you have to buy a new dome. I just don't think it's worth spending the extra on the dome to potentially be unhappy with your results due to turbid water conditions.

Grab a 12-24 if you don't like the fisheye , they are an aquired taste.

I just use a 40mm extension on my dome to switch from 10-17 to 12-24mm

Again 105 or 60mm. How close can you get ?

Hope this helps

Craig