And the Winner is ... D100 & Ike! Now, how about Lenses?

[tschroeder250]

Okay, after reading all the valuable input on my previous thread (thank you everyone), I have decided to go ahead with the Ikelite to house my D100. It came down to the $$$.

I have a series of followup questions on the accessory equipment. This thread is about the lenses.

I would like to do wide-angle, macro, and "normal" shots, and I plan to use this as my primary camera above and below the water. I have looked at the following candidate lenses, please share your thoughts.

Nikon 12mm-24mm f4.0G ED-IF DX
Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF (not expecting to house this)

How about additional lenses. I have seen mentioned the 105mm Macro lens mentioned a lot. Accessories? Filters? Etc?

Any and all input is appreciated!

-Todd

 

[mjh]

Have heard alot of good things about the 12-24 but I am using an 18-35 and the 60. The 60 works great for up to "shrimp" but if you want the shrimps eye you will probably need to go with the 110.

 

[tschroeder250]

Have heard alot of good things about the 12-24 but I am using an 18-35 and the 60. The 60 works great for up to "shrimp" but if you want the shrimps eye you will probably need to go with the 110.

Are you using those on a Digital SLR? If so, what mag factor? The D100 has a 1.5 magnification due to the size of the sensor.

 

[Marriard]

How much money you got....

The 12-24mm and the 60mm will keep you busy for quite some time. These are both my 'normal' lenses and I use them about 75% of the time and would be the lenses I started with. The 12-24 is my favourite lens of all time.

If I feel like shooting REAL small I like the 105mm, and for pygmy sea horses I add a +2 or +4 diopter (and occasionally a tripod). If you have an extra $500+ this would be the next lens I would buy.

Lastly there is a 10.5 DX fisheye. I don't like the fisheye effect, but others think it is great. If you have a lot of money, go for it. I'd probably buy a bunch of filters for the other lens before buying this (some nice 81/85 warming filters, maybe the cool flourecent filter sets).

Oh and strobes (see other message). I'd buy the 12-24, the 60mm, the strobes, the 105mm, filter sets and then the 10.5 in that order.

M

 

[marpacifica]

I have the 12-24DX and use it extensively above and below water. Highly recommended, but at over $1000 it's pricey. Make sure you get the right size extension and zoom rings for this puppy.

I also have the 105 Micro. I hated this lens at first but now that I've figured out how to focus it effectively underwater, I get really crisp shots that I prefer even better than the 12-24. My technique, which may work for you, is to prefocus the 105 (which turns into an effective 150+mm on the D100 or Fuji S2), then move the CAMERA/HOUSING until the image is in focus. You'll have to find a way to do this that suits you. What I do is rest the housing on my left forearm (left index finger planted in the sand, muck, or rock but never live coral) and move the camera or my forearm until I get a clear shot. If you try to focus on any macro shot using only the focus ring, you'll soon find out that whatever you just focused on easily goes out of focus due to surge or a change in your body positioning.

I can't comment on the Ike ports, but with the Aquatica flat ports there's not much room for filters. I made that mistake when I left a UV filter on the end of my 105, and it slightly buffed the inside of the port glass when fully extended on the focus. Can't see the buff on photos, but something to keep in mind. Some people on wetpixel.com and digitaldiver.net have been experimenting with color gel filters that fit between the lens and camera body and/or fit over the strobe. If you do a search on those topics/forums, you can get some really good info.

And contrary to myth, once you go digital SLR, you won't necessarily lose all use of the consumer digitals. I still use my Oly 4000 for getting into crevices and tight spots where a big bulky housing has no place. But I do prefer the digital SLR for most situations, particularly macro.

As for your other post on strobes, my suggestion is to get two strobes of your preference, but use only one for macro. The shadows on macro shots, depending on your strobe/arm placement, can create some really dramatic effects. That's for your own preference, so you might want to experiment. One strobe on macro usually provides enough light for my purposes, unless you plan to shoot something in the 2-4 foot distance range. Dual strobes are a must for distant wide angle shots, and for close focus wide angle one strobe may work for you.

Good luck.

 

[chippy]

One thing you will need on the 12-24mm in an Ike port is a Diopter, to allow the lens to focus on the dome's image. I believe Ike has a lens/port chart on there site as a guide. The 12-24mm is highly recommended though.

The 60mm and 105mm are both excellent, however I prefer the 105, as I find the 60mm focuses too close to the port at 1:1 making lighting really difficult. Saying that, I've just sold my 60mm (and will be selling the 105 eventually) as I've gone for the much more flexiable (and heavy!) 70-180mm Macro, but you won't have that option as Ike don't support this lens.

The other lens I have used is the Nikon 24-85mm which is great for fish portraits, and it's nice and light for travelling. It also uses my 12-24mm port ring and macro port.

 

[scorpiofish]

I believe that lens choice can be quite personal. The first mantra is "the right tool for the job". After that, it becomes a matter of which tools you prefer.

I've shot the following lenses:

16mm fisheye
20mm (film only)
24mm (film only)
12-24mm
17-35mm
60mm macro
105mm macro
200mm macro

On land I also use the 70-200mm, which replaced my 80-200mm.

My favorites for underwater use are the 17-35mm and 105mm macro. The Nikon 18-35mm can be a much cheaper substitute for the 17-35mm without much degradation in quality.

The 12-24mm is very wide (18-36mm 35mm film equivalent). I feel it is often too wide, but sometimes the 17-35mm isn't wide enough (e.g. shooting whalesharks). I can get fish portraits with the 17-35mm at the long end, whereas I can't with the 12-24mm. I know I'm in the minority on this one.

I prefer the 105mm macro over the 60mm. It is much easier to do macro work, but with the D100 you lose fish portrait abilities. But I figure if I'm doing macro, I'm really doing macro. I often add a 3T or 4T close-up for even more magnification.

I do use the 60mm on night dives because it is far more versatile in terms of critter/fish shooting. It also makes a decent portrait lens on land.

The 200mm won't cut it in an Ike housing. It is a very difficult lens to use. I seldom pack it any more.

The 80-400mm VR is a nice choice for land work. I chose the 70-200mm VR for the speed for action related needs. The Sigma 50-500mm is another good choice, but it is heavy, really heavy and should only be used on a tripod or super fast shutter speeds.

I use the fisheye for over/unders.

I've started packing fewer lenses, so I choose the lenses based on destination and likely targets. The 105mm and 17-35mm are always in the bag.

 

[ssra30]

Like other people mentioned already beside the 12-24 and 60mm, most other people will probably end up with either 105mm or 70-180mm or the 10.5mm.
I just got the d70 and am waiting for the housing to come in. Currently I have 3 lenses, 12-24, 60 and 80-170. However Sea and Sea has been a bit lack in communication regarding the custom made zoom gear for the 70-180mm which I ordered awhile ago. I might end of with a 105mm as well for my Lembeh Strait trip in July if the zoom gear does not arrive in time.
Ikelite does support the new Nikor 18-70mm lens which may be useful for a regular fish portrait as well.

 

[kdietz]

FWIW....the Ike 12-24 port does not require a diopter