35mm f2.0 AF-D underwater?

[Larry C]

Love the results I'm getting with the 60mm AF-D on macro, but in crap vis it takes too much working room to shoot decent fish portraits. I have a 35mm f2 AF-D I bought on E-Bay when I first got the camera. I tried it at home in the standard port, and it doesn't vignette and focuses reasonably close. Yet, nobody lists it as a choice for underwater lenses or shows a matching port. Anybody try it? The D300 is a DX, so it should be equivalent to about a 50mm on a full frame.

 

[John Gulliver]

Love the results I'm getting with the 60mm AF-D on macro, but in crap vis it takes too much working room to shoot decent fish portraits.

I'm very surprised to hear this criticism of the 60mm AF-D. The minimum focusing distance is 21.9cm (8.62")from the image plane. My Sea & Sea standard flat port is 8cm long, which means the lens will focus on subjects only a few cm in front of the port. In any event, the 60mm AF-D works fine here in our murky Swedish waters.
The closest focusing distance of the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is 25cm, according to Nikon, so how will that solve your problem? Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[Larry C]

I'm very surprised to hear this criticism of the 60mm AF-D. The minimum focusing distance is 21.9cm (8.62")from the image plane. My Sea & Sea standard flat port is 8cm long, which means the lens will focus on subjects only a few cm in front of the port. In any event, the 60mm AF-D works fine here in our murky Swedish waters.
The closest focusing distance of the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is 25cm, according to Nikon, so how will that solve your problem? Or have I misunderstood you?

Close focus isn't the problem. Getting the whole fish in the picture with as little green water between camera and subject as possible is. I can do a fish portrait with the 60, but I have to be 3 or 4 feet away, due to the fact that on the DX it's more like an 85. It takes wonderful close-ups, but I don't always want a face shot, and from the distance I have to give it, I can't get the shots I did with my little point and shoot (28mm equivalent) because I lose detail to the crud in the water. I'd just like to get a little closer and still have the whole fish in the shot.

 

[John Gulliver]

I'd just like to get a little closer and still have the whole fish in the shot.

Excuse my ignorance but won't the Tokina at 17mm let you do that? I understand that it will focus extrremely close, virtually from the front of the dome. I'd have thought that would work for fish that are too big for the 60mm, which is fine for whole portraits of fish up to about a foot long, even in water with a lot of crud, like ours.

 

[Larry C]

It will, and I have it, but I don't have $8-1200 for a dome to fit it yet. I DO have a
35mm lens that's 50% wider than my 60mm, though the flat port takes away a bit compared to a domed zoom port or something of that sort. I'll probably just use one of my dives this weekend to test the 35 and see how it comes out. Just wondered if anyone else had tried it previously, do to the amazing dearth of info on that lens for UW use. Maybe it's just a tweener and neither fish nor fowl. We'll see.

 

[Larry C]

I'll post my results in the main UW photo section. See below.

 

[scottfiji]

As Larry has pointed out, 60mm is often too long for larger fish, and the 10-17mm much too wide. A zoom like a 17-70mm is often ideal, but the 35mm F2 should work well. I'm looking forward to seeing the results, which will say just as much about the photographer and conditions as it will about the lens

Scott

 

[slowhands]

Close focus isn't the problem. Getting the whole fish in the picture with as little green water between camera and subject as possible is. I can do a fish portrait with the 60, but I have to be 3 or 4 feet away, due to the fact that on the DX it's more like an 85. It takes wonderful close-ups, but I don't always want a face shot, and from the distance I have to give it, I can't get the shots I did with my little point and shoot (28mm equivalent) because I lose detail to the crud in the water. I'd just like to get a little closer and still have the whole fish in the shot.

You might want to consider the Sigma 28mm F1.8. It is a sweet lens, fast, wide, macro to 20cm. It has been shouldered aside by the newer Nikon 35mm F1.8, which is optically better by a tad. But I have both and there are times when the extra width of the 28mm saves the day. Still waiting to see your results, do you post them here on scubaboard, or ??

 

[Larry C]

Here's a link to the post with the pictures I took with the 35mm. I did get some decent shots, but it wasn't a spectacular UW lens by any means. What type of port are you using with the 28. I had the 35 in the standard flat port which limits the wide angle, but is good for the macro. I might try it in the dome for kicks, but I'm not sure what sort of results I'll get. It might need a diopter to focus close enough for the dome.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/329104-monterey-pics-3-27-10-a.html