final lens choices.

[Spoon]

have narrowed down my choices and will have to make do with either one.

i just decided on the d200 and am pretty fortunate that i was able to even get it. its so convenient that it will be used by my company for taking pics and aid in the marketing campaign of my products. and am having a sort of dilemma as i am shelling out more than my original budget of d70s + 18-200mm vr.

basically i have been researching and have come up with a wishlist of lenses i want. note that after getting camera+lenses i will be doing topside photography til i even consider selling my kindney for the housings/strobes. so i would basically want a lens that works topside and uw.

here are my options:

option 1: nikon 18-200 vr + 12-24 mm, 60mm

the 18-200mm imho best value all around lens but cant be used uw, but id be covered with pretty much everything uw with 12-24mm and 60mm

option 2: nikon 17-55mm 2.8 + 50mm 1.4 or 60mm

with the 17-55 i can use on land and uw but lose some wal capabilities to the 12-24. worth the compromise?

what would you get or suggest? by the way when i had my point and shoot i loved taking macro and still do. i would have loved to shoot wide as well but was limited by my camera. hopefully i can try itout this time.

 

[Cacia]

I don't really understand much about lenses, but I asked Mauricio Handler, not just because he is a pro, but a good educator-type. He told me to get the 12-24 mm and the 105 mm.....so that is what I did. Still don't know why, but I have been happy with the range. My BF just bought me a fish eye 10.5 but I cannot afford the port yet.

You will get way better advice than me, but I thought I would weigh in since I am proud to know what a 12-24 IS. Congrats!

 

[Mo2vation]

I have the 60, 10.5, 12-24, 18-70. I've rented about every other one, especially the long zooms for events, vacations, etc.

Something to condisder is how much of your shooting is going to be UW? I mean, for me only about 25% of my shooting is UW. I shoot many hundreds, sometimes thousands of dry images a month - compared to a couple of hundred a month UW. So my rig has to shoot dry first, and wet second.

I can say without reservation the 12-24 is the one I use most. I take shots of the people I love doing stuff. Most of these shots are indoors, and for that the 12-24 is without peer.

UW, its all about the 60 for me right now. I love the 10.5... its my second "go-to" lens UW... but its a terrible turtle lens (for me it was... need to get too close.) I use the 12-24 for turtles. For Sea Lions, I prefer the 10.5 - Doggies are way too fast to focus, and besides - they're usually all up in your grill anyway. The 10.5 is perfect for them.

I'm putting a Teleconverter on the 60 and gonna give that a shot before I buy a 105. I've rented the 105 a number of times, and its a fine macro lens - but I get what I need topside macro from my 60.

Aside from those three (60, 12-24, 10.5) I can't ever see me using anything else UW for the diving I do. On top, its all about my 12-24, and my 60 for eBay macros. And of course, the 10.5 for bunnies and creepy forest stuff!

I've rented a couple of dozen different lenses, and these are the ones I own. Next on the ownership scale is probably the 80-400VR.

---
Ken

 

[Spoon]

you are so lucky that you get to rent lenses before spending boatloads on them only to find out you wont need them. i am new to slrs and am getting into them with the end goal of shooting uw. but i will have to learn them on land and might take a few classes.

i need a setup for land that i can also utilize underwater NOT vice versa

 

[Mariozi]

Since you do some upside pictures, I think Catherine just hit the mark!!!
Try your best, maybe selling just half a kidney... maybe not buying all those lens at the same time, if you were my UWPhoto student I would also told you to go for the 12-24 then the 105 and when the kidney heals, the 10.5.
Ken has some ground to his word, for turtles and other fishes the 10.5mm is a bit of a challenge. But for seafans, corals etc.(even small ones!) the 10.5 is heaven. And then again, if you overcome that challenge... wow.
Best wishes!

 

[Spoon]

Since you do some upside pictures, I think Catherine just hit the mark!!!
Try your best, maybe selling just half a kidney... maybe not buying all those lens at the same time, if you were my UWPhoto student I would also told you to go for the 12-24 then the 105 and when the kidney heals, the 10.5.
Ken has some ground to his word, for turtles and other fishes the 10.5mm is a bit of a challenge. But for seafans, corals etc.(even small ones!) the 10.5 is heaven. And then again, if you overcome that challenge... wow.
Best wishes!

can i use a diopter with the 60mm to magnify the image? also im tempted on the 10.5 but only after the kidney heals what about the 17-55 for uw and land?

 

[Mariozi]

well...
60mm goes as far as 1:1 magnification, in the D200 case is roughly a 23x15mm area (or something like it) wich is small enough for most of people.
The thing is that the 60mm has a working distance (from the front element of the lens to the object in the focus plane) of just 9mm (9,04mm...) vs 13mm on the 105, and 26mm on the 200 (wow, but look at the price tag!).
When you add a close up filter this distance gets smaller. You may get used to it, I have done some measurements and just with the Close-Up +4 you get something as 1.6:1 but you will end up shooting very close to the port glass... possible but not confortable. It is a good way to star at this amazing thing called super-macro, once you got the hang of it, you`ll see amazing things underwater... I have gone to 6.25:1, and have plans to go to 8.4:1 this year!!! Have you ever saw pictures os fishes eyes where you see something like mother-of-pearl iniside the eye??? I have seen it LIVE through the viewfinder!!! Like Doubilets saying "You see things through the viewfinder that you cant believe!"

 

[Mariozi]

what about the 17-55 for uw and land?

Its a trade off.
with the 12-24 you have good wide angle capability... but no tele optics.
with the 17-55 you loose a bit of your wide angle, and adds some medium-tele.
this is what I think:
what you loose in wide angle, you will miss dearly at 30 feet of water and some of it at land.
what you loose in tele, you can compensate with a inexpensive (around U$100) 55-200 or 70-300G, or even the VERY GOOD 50mm/1.8!
On the other hand, if buying the 17-55 means you can get your hands faster on the 10.5mm and saving your kidney... you may have a good option.
"Always difficult buying equipment is"

 

[Mariozi]

You may notice I am a little against buying the 12-24... but from my point of view, that of a guy who used to shoot film and could get my hands on a 18-35mm for around 450 bucks, its is a hard thing to do paying 800+ for the 12-24 (same equivalent focal distances...) you see? Specially with the 10.5 and 105 around for 500.

 

[midwestdvr]

Congrats on your d200 purchase. Wow!