Considering a EOS 60D - Should I get it and with what lense as my "go-to" lens?

[Tigerman]

I have considered it, and Ive decided to put my priority on the camera for now.
There wont be a very long period of time between getting the camera and the strobes anyways and I typically shoot in conditions like these..
CRW_2331 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (Thats at ~18-20m with no strobes or flash).

I know theres more color to get from many of my pictures, but I have decided to change the camera first and get the strobes not too long after that.

 

[smellzlikefish]

I would agree with you that the kit lens is less than brilliant, but consider a few points.

You are going to find that lenses that fall into the "mid-range zooms" are pretty useless underwater in comparison to wide angle and macros. There is nothing that you will get with a mid-range lens that you won't capture better with the other choices. I strongly recommend saving the $1000+ you would spend on the lens on something else. If you really want macro, get a set of closeup lenses for cheap to hold you over until you make the jump to a dedicated macro.

Your greatest improvement in underwater shooting is going to be with the addition of light in the red spectrum which will ultimately be in the form of a strobe. You can use the money you save from holding off on a lens purchase to get yourself a strobe you will use for the life of the camera.

 

[plok]

Well, the kit lens doesn’t come for free; it adds about $250 to the D60 body. Sigma 17-70 is $470 (B&H prices, I don’tknow what it costs in Europe). $220difference is nowhere close to $1000 saving. Sure it is not the best choice underwater, but it will serve well on the first dive trip. The next step is getting a macro and a wide-angle. You probably will never dive again with the Sigma 17-70 after getting wide-angle and macro lenses, but it will be a good all-around land lens, way better than many of kit lenses. By getting for example a wide-angle as the first lens, you are limiting yourself on land. You probably would want to take pictures above water as well; something in the 17-70 range is needed.

The same port that is good for the Sigma 17-70 is also good for the wide-angle (at least with the Nauticam housing, using another extension ring).

 

[Tigerman]

the 24-70 I was looking at IS about $1k though plok..
As far as the camera and lenses goes I have found some good places to get them and I can even get the 60D with the sigma 17-70 macro for less than the cost of a housing

 

[plok]

That is the DG lens, good for a full frame body. Is that what you have in mind? It gotta better lens, but its advantages might be not so obvious on the cropped sensor especially underwater. Comparing two 17-24 mm range is that what you would be missing.

---------- Post Merged at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:08 AM ----------

You said that you are more macro oriented. Neither of these two is a real macro lens. Although 17-70 is labeled macro, but its max. magnification is only 1:2.7 on the cropped sensor. Its macro label is more about its min focusing distance 22cm vs. 38cm of the 24-70. The 17-70 is to be used behind the dome port to use its wide angle range. You would be focusing on the vitual image, so shorter min focusing distance plays role.

 

[smellzlikefish]

What is keeping you fro spending similar money on your first macro lens?

 

[Tigerman]

I did have the fact that the 24-70mm is DG lens and the camera have a crop factor of 1,6 - so the 24-70mm should be equivalent to a 38-112mm, which would be fairly close to standard zoom.
However as it seems to have problems fitting into a housing anyways and you have things like the 17-70 macro and others in the same sort of range, its definetly an option to get "slightly wide to slightly zoom" but extreme wide angles is not "my thing".
The reason Id like to have the ability to shoot ~normal angle is the stuff like the napoleon wrasse and the shark in my previous link.
The schools we kinda KNEW was there and thats why you go to that site that time of year, so it would be an ideal dive for a wide-angle lens, but the tiny buggers definetly get most of time..

I know a few dome/lens combinations requires a close-up lens - does these affect the field of view/angle or magnification?

 

[plok]

The fact that it is DG mostly matters if you keep in mind switching to the full frame body one day.

You are "breaking rules". It is the opposite of usual practice. After napoleon wrasse or shark one would go with the wide-angle lens. Primarily to have less water between the lens and the object – better light, better color, etc. I looked at your pictures. You have quite mastered non-strobe underwater photography. Very nice composition on #3243, #2552 pictures. Unfortunately bubbles got into the frame on the 2552. Obviously color is missing – only strobes would help. However another evil comes with strobes – backscatter, but that’s another topic.

I suggest you to think again, and maybe consider a wide-angle, something like Canon EF-S 10-22mm rectilinear lens.

 

[Tigerman]

The napoleon wrasse and the shark is "shots of opportunity" though. They are shots that just happened to come by and nothing planned.
I GOT the shots, they are obviously not perfect for many reasons - but they are nice for "look at that f-ing big fish" in the bar or for background on my laptop.
What Im thinking is that if I get a lens thats too narrow angle I would miss such opportunities completely, while too wide (especially fisheye) could be detrimental to the macro shots.

Most of the macro shots in the link is shot at a 35mm equivalent btw (which on the G7 is 7,4mm or something like that)

I have no problem with breaking rules if it fills my needs tho - Im a rebel (but getting a rebel would be admitting it, so cant do that).
So what Im trying to do is figure out what DOES fill my need as well as possible and can be housed as far as lenses go.

 

[plok]

Yeah.. I see, you like to be different... that doesn’t always help, but may work...

Looking again at your pictures I would say that more than 70% of them would only benefit, if were taken with the wide-angle lens, but you would lose a chance for remaining 30%. The math is for the wide-angle.

That’s unfortunately is a trade-off when you switch from the P&S to the DSLR, you get quality, but loose versatility. Mid-range zoom lens would result in quite ordinary shots.