Must have lenses...

[Phoenix1]

Marcelo:

Thanks very much for your explanation. This really helps.

If I understand you correctly, the working distance would be the Nikon published "minimum focus distance" from the sensor plane minus (a) the thickness of the body forward of the sensor plane (b) the length of the lens and (c) the distance from the front of the lens and the outside of the port.

In your example with the 105, some simple arithmetic yields the sum of a + c to be about 2.4 inches. Using this number with the lens length of the 60 (shorter by 1 inch), further assuming that the "c" distance is the same with the proper port and the shorter plane-to-subject minimum focus distance of 7 inches yields an answer of a working distance for 1:1 of about one inch. That would be "really close", as you say.

In fairness to my comparison with the Nikonos, however, using my close up lens over my 35 mm UW Nikor lens gives me a reproduction ratio of only 1:4.5 at 10 inches away. I don't know how to do the math, but I'm guessing I might be that distance (10 inches or so) with the digital 60 rig to get the same ratio. Is that about right?

Am I getting this?

The beauty of the digital setup, of course, is (a) I can choose my working distance; (b) autofocus will take a lot of guesswork out; and (c) with the 12+ megapixel files from the D90 or D300, I can crop, within limits, to the shot I want, if I can't get close enough.

 

[Darnold9999]

Don't do the math, but I am constantly surprised when I look up after taking the shot how close the front of the port is to whatever I am shooting. With the 60 I almost never find that I get too close and can't focus on what I am trying to shoot. With the 105 I find it happens all the time and I need to back off just a bit. Again don't do the math or measure, but it seems somewhere around 3" or so from the front of the port with the 105, with the 60 it is quite a bit less - around 1" or so. I find at those distances that autofocus is pretty much useless and you are playing with depth of field and where you want the focus point to be. Mostly I set the focus and then move the camera at extreme close up as the focus gear on the Ike port for the 60 is not that great for fine control. With the 105 autofocus is more useful, but I still use autofocus to get the initial focus, lock it and then move the camera for fine tuning.

Not an expert by any means and constantly learning, but that is what I have learned so far with these two lenses.

Have ordered a woody's lens to add to the 105 and 60 for extreme close up for really small stuff. Looking forward to seeing what I get.

 

[Phoenix1]

Thanks for the perspective. I'll bet those 1" shots are a bear to light.

From everything I hear, it still seems like the 60 might be the right "starter" macro lens for me. If I want to go smaller, I can always add the 105 later.

 

[Mariozi]

Donald is perfectly right... don't worry much about the math of it.
Don: What woody's lens? Please, post the results when you have them!!! Would love to see this...

Nikon publishes the "working distance" for the old 105 and 60s... I just took 1cm out of it due to the flat port, that allows you to use a filter in the lens.
Yeah, when I get really close I usually switch it to Manual Focus at the maximum amplification, an then go looking for the focus. And they ARE a black-hole with regards to light, I normally have to go all the way to ISO400, 800 or beyond.

I don't know how to do the math, but I'm guessing I might be that distance (10 inches or so) with the digital 60 rig to get the same ratio. Is that about right?
R: Again, don't need to worry about the math, anyway. I don't own a 60mm, when I started with SLRs underwater I went straight to the 105mm. And I am away from home and my equipment now, but if you have a 60 or 105 close to you, when you focus on something, if you look through the focus distance window on the lens she tells you how far you focused AND what amplification factor you get. When you work with your Nikonos setup you are limited to your 10 inches focus, with an SLR this limitation goes out the window, As yourself said:
The beauty of the digital setup, of course, is (a) I can choose my working distance*; (b) autofocus will take a lot of guesswork out; and (c) with the 12+ megapixel files from the D90 or D300, I can crop, within limits, to the shot I want, if I can't get close enough. Just try to get close before choosing to crop. It is possible:

This is a reaaaaaally big sand shark (some call lemon shark) eye... no crop done, I was inside his cave at something about 40-60cm to his eye.

*provided you don't use extension tubes or close-up filters, that won't let you focus far; and that you have "ways" to illuminate far subjects.

 

[Darnold9999]

Woody's Diopter UNDERWATER CAMERA HOUSINGS,UNDERWATER CAMERAS,UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT,BATTERY CHARGERS,NEXUS AMERICA,IKELITE,ULTRALIGHT, for things that are really really small - at least that is what I think I am going to use it for. We will see how it works.

 

[John Gulliver]

"AF-D is for guys who like macro (might venture into super-macro, though for that the old 105 is better)"
Would you care to explain why, Marcelo? Most photographers I know woud say that while the 105mm is excellent for clear tropical waters, the 60mm is a better choice for our turbid northern European waters, where you want as litle water in front of the lens as possible. Or are there other, more important, issues with supermacro?

 

[Mariozi]

Hey John, in my opinion you are not wrong at all... they are different lenses, and what you describe it's definitely one of the advantages of the 60mm, and you don't need to go to northern europe, I used to live in Rio, Brasil, and depending on the conditions a 60mm would have suited me better on some dives... The comparison I suggested did took into account the usage in "pleasant" conditions.
But one thing is sure, if you go super-macro with the 105mm as I showed, you might get shorter distances than the 60mm at 1:1 (which are suitable distances for bad water), those shorter distances are surely OK for northern europe. On the other hand, if you have the same set-up on a 60mm, you might get so close to the port glass that one would think the 105 more suitable.
Remember, the above paragraph is about super-macro... if you shoot it with only the lens in "turbid" conditions you will probably be better suited with the 60mm.

Just an observation, it is probably not your case: Sometimes I confront myself with some "established knowledge" in this forum that goes against what I believe it is a good approach for the development of a good photographer. The 2 that I noticed most are:
- 10.5mm is a difficult lens to work with... you should not start with it...
I cannot disagree more!!! I believe every lens has its characteristics, to label that as difficult is not the right path to follow, all my students love this lens, and it takes me only 1 dive to show them how to properly use it. This lens is even better than the old 16mm fisheye on film!
- The 60mm is a starter and easy lens, and the 105mm is the difficult and advanced lens..
We have been discussing this for half this thread. I just think they are different lenses for slight different purposes. And both EXCEL at what they do.

 

[Darnold9999]

Agree that they are two different lenses not beginner/advanced, but I do find the 60 to be a more general purpose lens than the 105 so end up choosing it as my default until I have been on a site once and know what it is I want to shoot. Was also quite disapointed in the 105 diving in the PNW - just too much junk in the water. Got a way better result with the 60 so the 105 has become a warm water lens for me.

 

[Rusty_CCR]

Sharky 60 what lens did you end up with? I usually recommend the 60 for macro and 12-24 or 10-17 for someone thats just starting out.

The 60 is a good macro lens and gives you some working distance, then once you find yourself getting too close to your favorite subjects on a constant basis I would get a 105VR to give yourself some working distance.

The 10-17 can be challenging to properly light compared to other wide angle lens like the 12-24 or 17-35 but once you understand the principles of strobe positioning and with some practice you can get good results.

 

[sharky60]

This is a reaaaaaally big sand shark (some call lemon shark) eye... no crop done, I was inside his cave at something about 40-60cm to his eye.
QUOTE]



Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about...

btw, that shot looks a little familiar, great minds shoot alike ...