I received a free 20D, and am going to outfit it for underwater. Ikelite housing, dual Ikelite 125 strobes, and as always, the next question is the lens. I have been using a Sea and Sea 750G, but I think my skills have outgrown the abilities of the camera,hence the upgrade. When chosing a lens for underwater, is there that much of a difference between a 2.4 lens and a 3.5, and so on? Which do you recommend. Also, is the 8 inch dome port that much better than the 6 inch? I know bigger isnt always better, but it might be in this case. I dont know. I am looking for a "starter" lens, if you will. I have run a search on these forums, and answered a few other questions that I had. Thank you all in advance.
Canon EOS 20D questions
- Thread starter diverbob
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
bladephotog
Contributor
This is the setup I use and am quite happy with it. I use the Canon 10-22mm in an 8 inch dome port for wreck photography. There is 1/3rd of a stop between f2.8 and f3.5 which is minor, but still a touch slower. Frankly I don't notice it.
For a starter lens it really depends on what you want to do. I believe your starter lens should be a lens you plan on keeping. Otherwise you're wasting money. For daily shooting 99% of the time I use Canon's 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on separate bodies. This covers most of what I want to do. Figure out what you want to do and buy accordingly.
For a starter lens it really depends on what you want to do. I believe your starter lens should be a lens you plan on keeping. Otherwise you're wasting money. For daily shooting 99% of the time I use Canon's 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on separate bodies. This covers most of what I want to do. Figure out what you want to do and buy accordingly.
What do you want to shoot?
For underwater and a starter lens I'd say go for the Sigma 17-70 if you aren't quite sure what you want. This will let you shoot reasonable wide angle and allow you to shoot some pretty small stuff. It also is perfectly croppable
You'll need the dome port - talk to the guys at Ikelite or at www.reefphoto.com to find out which dome is best.
Sigma 17-70...cropped
Sigma 17-70...uncropped - different shot, but you get the idea
For macro to medium fishies I'd head for the 60mm macro. This is the lens that virtually lives on my camera as I am addicted to the small stuff, but still like to pop a frame or two off at other things. Get Woody, too
Canon 60mm with Woody's dioptre
Canon 60mm no dioptre
The Canon 10-22 is a great lens and if you are totally into WA then go for it. I actually ended up changing from this lens to my Sigma 17-70 for the whale sharks and manta rays this year coz the 10-22 was simply too wide.
Sigma 17-70
You can also have a look at the Sticky about Getting Started (or follow the Pink Link in my signature) as it has a bit of a run down on lens choices to help you get going.
For underwater and a starter lens I'd say go for the Sigma 17-70 if you aren't quite sure what you want. This will let you shoot reasonable wide angle and allow you to shoot some pretty small stuff. It also is perfectly croppable
You'll need the dome port - talk to the guys at Ikelite or at www.reefphoto.com to find out which dome is best.Sigma 17-70...cropped
Sigma 17-70...uncropped - different shot, but you get the idea
For macro to medium fishies I'd head for the 60mm macro. This is the lens that virtually lives on my camera as I am addicted to the small stuff, but still like to pop a frame or two off at other things. Get Woody, too
Canon 60mm with Woody's dioptre
Canon 60mm no dioptre
The Canon 10-22 is a great lens and if you are totally into WA then go for it. I actually ended up changing from this lens to my Sigma 17-70 for the whale sharks and manta rays this year coz the 10-22 was simply too wide.
Sigma 17-70
You can also have a look at the Sticky about Getting Started (or follow the Pink Link in my signature) as it has a bit of a run down on lens choices to help you get going.
MarkH
Contributor
I thought that the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was a full stop, but either way, unless you are somewhere other than the tropics or going very deep, you probably won't go that open anyways.bladephotog:
I'd think underwater you would rarely find use to shoot wide open, though there are instances (perhaps deep wrecks or interiors etc?). I know I don't use any lenses wide open underwater here. From what I've gleaned most lenses are sharpest at one to two stops less than their widest, too.
But for land use a wider maximum aperture is definitely a good thing, though they are usually quite a bit more expensive so might not be worth it to everyone!
But for land use a wider maximum aperture is definitely a good thing, though they are usually quite a bit more expensive so might not be worth it to everyone!
bladephotog
Contributor
swankenstein:
No, 2.8-4 is a full stop. But come to think of it, 2.8 to 3.5 is 2/3rd's of a stop. Sorry about that. Either way, I do use my 10-22 at 3.5 quite a bit UW. But I shoot almost exclusively wrecks in the Great Lakes. And I usually only use it wide open on the deep dark stuff shooting ambient exteriors.
Here is an example of a wreck shot with the 10-22 at f3.5, ISO 1600, in Kingston, Ontario, Lake Huron. I love this wreck, the Munson, but it's always very dark. So wide open with the ISO jacked up is the only way to shoot an overall without taking down a tripod.
Whether underwater or on land, shooting wide open is a trade off. You're sacrificing sharpness and DOF for shutter speed. But you gotta do what you gotta do to make the picture.
