Must have lenses...

[sharky60]

...Ok, I finally did it, I bought my first DSLR.

Nikon D200! Whoo hoo!! WOW! this is a whole lot of camera!!

I purchased it for work, but of course eventually I will get a box, and a light bulb or 2, and get it sub-surface. Most likley I'll get an Iklite housing if that helps with the following questions, and probably a single strobe to begin with.

the million dollar questions of course...lenses, lenses, lenses.

I know I want a serious macro, I love me some macro and with this camera I want to get REALLY close...so 50mm? less?

Closer than this...

Then an "general purpose" lens, if there is such a thing for underwater photography. Something I can use for reef shots and shooting a whole fish or small schools. Above surface I think this will be my 28-80mm telephoto, it's versitle enough for everyday use as long as I don't have to get too close.

shots like these...

Should I go wide angle? I use the wide angle attachment on my DX5000 90% of the time, taking it off for certain macro shots mostly.

Just curious to what y'all are using I'm still weeding through alcina's camera info...what a great source!

thankx

 

[Warren_L]

There are lenses you can buy that can do a little of everything, but the problem is that you end up sacrificing something for that flexibility, at least in my experience. Get yourself a good wide angle lens and a decent macro lens - this will make a good start. For the DX sensor, you have lots of choices for wide angle - 12-24mm Nikkor, 10-17mm Tokina, 10.5mm Nikkor fisheye (and others as well). The last two are fisheyes, so you have to deal with the barrel distortion, but they have wide angles of view. For macro, you have the 60mm Nikkor Micro and 105mm Nikkor Micro, but both are the same 1:1, just with different working distances. To get supermacro better than 1:1 you need to add a diopter - either wet or dry. The other option is to use a teleconverter, but then you get into port extensions as well. But if you could have only one macro lens, I'd go for the 60mm as it has more verastility than the 105mm.

 

[Mariozi]

Warren said it all. Just to list one more option: Sigma 10-20mm.
And if you are willing to go super-macro one suggestion:
Go for the 105mm, because you most probably will have to sacrifice some working distance (distance from object to front element of the lens at maximum magnification) if you chose to use close-up filters and/or extension tubes.

 

[Darnold9999]

Agree with Warren on this one. I have three lenses I use underwater 60, 105 and 12-24. Of the three if I don't know what I will be seeing I take the 60. If the vis is poor the 12 - 24 is pretty much useless. The 105 is OK unless until the vis gets really bad then only the 60 is useful.

 

[Eskasi]

Hey Sharky! Welcome to the deep end! I knew you would find your way here eventually! I got little to add to whats already been said here... here are my own opinions.....

Nikkor 60mm macro AF-S.....A MUST! It can do shots like this (3 1/2ft grouper)

and this (1 1/2inch Blue Stripe Neon Goby- I think)

105mm VR is a lot more specialized.... I would not necessarily get it just yet (unless you want to use it topside). Even in good macro grounds, I found myself taking the 60mm out most of the time as I didn't want to miss out on fish portraits too....

For WA, I recommend the 10-17 Tokina Fisheye. I used a 10.5 Nikkor Fisheye which was amazingly sharp...however, I found it a little too wide at times.

I also used a "general purpose" Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 HSM Macro. I find this to be good for mid to larger sized subjects.....however, it could not do either proper macro or proper WA well.....this annoyed me to no end.... it didn't take me long to stop using it and just sticking to macro or WA.

Of all the lenses, I use the 60mm AF-S the most. You learn very quickly to be selective about the shots you can take (or plan to take) when diving with a DSLR. Gone are your days of using the PnS "jack of all trades"....you substitute that with much better picture quality and control over your shots when using a DSLR.

 

[sharky60]

Thanks for the tips guys, this really helps!

 

[Mariozi]

Just a few notes about the AF-S vs AF-D 60mm:
AF-S has definitely better MTF charts;
AF-S has faster focus than AF-D;
AF-S will work better with the new D40 or D60 cameras;

On the other hand:
AF-D is 100-200 cheaper than AF-S;
AF-D has a lot less light falloff than AF-S (for portraits at home...) at f/2.8;
AF-D has better working distance than AF-S (almost an inch more!) at 1:1 life-size amplification;
AF-D works better with extension tubes, teleconverters (even third party) if you fancy super-macro;

My humble opinion:
- AF-S is for guys who like fish portraits, but also want some macro abilities;
- AF-D is for guys who like macro (might venture into super-macro, though for that the old 105 is better) but also wants to be able to shoot fish portraits.

Users choice.
Seeya

 

[Phoenix1]

I am trying to compare my macro experience in film to use of the 60 macro in digital. I am a digital wanna be but currently a Nikonos user, and I have a close up attachment that frames a roughly 5x7 picture a fixed 10 inches from the lens. It is devilishly tricky to use because (a) with the framer and rod in place it scares skittish fish and (b) with it removed, you play roulette with focus. Depth of field is only about 3/4 of an inch at f/8.

I am planning a move to digital -- probably the D300 or D90 -- and have heard nothing but great things about the 60 macro.

How do the working distances compare to my fixed 10-in limitation. For example, how far away (apparent distance) do you suppose that grouper was? The blenny? Are these full frame or cropped in processing?

Nikon says the closest focus distance for the 60 is .6 ft (I guess about 7 inches). Is that measured from the front of the lens or the sensor plane? Will it be the same under water? In other words, to get a 1:1 macro shot, how close will I have to be to my subject with this lens?

If, as I read, the 105 has a closest working distance of 1 foot, does that mean you get 1:1 at 1 foot? I know you're better off with less water between you and the object, but at 7 inches I might be too close and will some easily frighten some objects, and lighting might become a more serious difficulty.

Can anyone enlighten this learning novice?

Hey Sharky! Welcome to the deep end! I knew you would find your way here eventually! I got little to add to whats already been said here... here are my own opinions.....

Nikkor 60mm macro AF-S.....A MUST! It can do shots like this (3 1/2ft grouper)

and this (1 1/2inch Blue Stripe Neon Goby- I think)

 

[Phoenix1]

Sorry, I misspoke in my note just now. It's a goby, not a blenny.

 

[Mariozi]

How do the working distances compare to my fixed 10-in limitation?
R: The "working distance" is a term we used mostly related to macro work, it's the distance from the front element of the lens to the subject at the maximum magnification in the 60mm case: 1:1. Anything further than that you will be able to shoot at will from any distance, depending on how you want to frame it... remember you will probably be looking through the lens, and will see when it focuses on the target.

Nikon says the closest focus distance for the 60 is .6 ft (I guess about 7 inches). Is that measured from the front of the lens or the sensor plane?
R: No, thats measured from the film plane (now sensor plane) I haven't seen the published working distance for the new 60mm. What I reported is from practical experience.

Will it be the same under water?
R: It is actually a little less!!!

In other words, to get a 1:1 macro shot, how close will I have to be to my subject with this lens?
R: Really close, specially considering you will have the port glass between the lens and your 1:1 subject.

If, as I read, the 105 has a closest working distance of 1 foot,
R: Actually 13cm, around 5.1 in.

does that mean you get 1:1 at 1 foot?
R: Yeah... but again at 13cm from the front element of the lens.

I know you're better off with less water between you and the object, but at 7 inches I might be too close and will some easily frighten some objects, and lighting might become a more serious difficulty.
R: Who said SLR UW Photography is easy??? Welcome!!! You can see hundreds of pictures here from all members doing exactly that, every day... just to illustrate:

and

Both shots using 105mm (old), Kenko 3x TC and a 36mm Auto Extension Tube to get a magnification of 4.5:1
These pictures portray an area of only 5.33x8mm!!! And I am almost sure I had less than 2 in. from the port glass.
Depth of field was also very critical.
The second goby is the off-spring of the big one. it is less than 1mm thick in its thickest part. He was sitting in the same type of coral as the goby sent by Eskasi, but not over it... actually in between the coral polyps!

You can still shoot bigger, like this with the 105mm alone:

and

Good luck!!! It is hard work, but rewarding!!!