Nikon D90.......?????

[WetLens]

Personally, I think you'd be happier with the 60 macro. While the 105 is nice, it is difficult to focus (smaller depth of field) and puts you pretty far away from most critters. The 60 is effectively a 90mm lens, which was my preferred macro (Vivitar Series I macro) with my Canon F1 system.

As far as the 18-105, I don't think that is quite wide enough. I went with the 16-85 for a mid-range lens and I have been happy with that, but have the Tokina 10-17 for wide angle. I'd look for something wider.

 

[Larry C]

I went with the 16-85 for a mid-range lens and I have been happy with that, but have the Tokina 10-17 for wide angle. I'd look for something wider.

Are you using the 16-85 in a flat or dome port? With a minimum focus of 1.3ft. and 1:4.5, can you do anything resembling macro? What housing are you using?

 

[WetLens]

Ikelite & 8" Dome Port. I wouldn't exactly call it macro, but I can get pretty close - that is what I've been most pleased with - it gives me a fair wide angle should something big come by and the 85 allows me to zoom in. I'd say that I am closer to 85 most of the dive, but I lean towards macro anyway. Here are some shots taken with the 16-85 - one at 16 and three at 85 - all with a +4 diopter. I forgot the diopter on a dive in Bonaire - lens is about worthless as it has a real hard time focusing on anything.

 

[WetLens]

Sorry, realized I had cropped most of those images - here they are essentially untouched. Reduced size and increased compression to get under 200kb. This should provide a better idea of how close you can get. The flamingo tongues were shot at closest focus and 85mm as I recall pulling back until focus locked.

 

[Larry C]

That's pretty good for a general purpose lens. The Flamingo tongues are really nice and sharp, as is the one with the staghorn coral. The Blenny's kind of soft and although the Lionfish is perfect, the diver in the near background is kind of soft as well, so the depth of field isn't what it could be with a true WA, or a true macro, but overall quite nice. Anyone have a comparison with the Sigma 17-70 macro? How about the 18-55 kit lens?

 

[shoturtle]

Is video something you are looking for also?

 

[Toolboy]

I would suggest you compare first hand the difference of looking through the Nikon lenses and the other brands like Sigma and Tonika.
I did and I could not believe the difference of a lense made Nikor and the others......the other are much better I find.
the clarity of a lense made by a company the does mostly lenses is better than a company that tries to do both.

Not that there is anything wrong with Nikor.....I find the sigma a much better visual lense

 

[Rolando2]

again can't thank you guys for the input will check other lens this is going to take longer to buy the right len's but I just want the best at a good price. thanks one more time

 

[AussieByron]

I would suggest you compare first hand the difference of looking through the Nikon lenses and the other brands like Sigma and Tonika.
I did and I could not believe the difference of a lense made Nikor and the others......the other are much better I find.
the clarity of a lense made by a company the does mostly lenses is better than a company that tries to do both.

Not that there is anything wrong with Nikor.....I find the sigma a much better visual lense

I havnt found a better macro lens in 60mm or 105mm than a Nikkor. I would expect 99% of underwater Nikon would use the same macro lenses. I cant think of a third party lens company such as Sigma offering a better macro lens.

I love my Tokina 10-17mm and the reason i bought it was that it was alot cheaper than the Nikkor 10.5mm. Which at the time was the major reason for its purchase.

Saying that a thrid party lenses are better than Nikkor would be a very big call and a very generalised statement. I think you would have to compare a group of lenses for each of the specific roles and your budget.

like:

Best macro lens around 60mm

Best Macro around the 105mm

Best general purpose lens

Best wide/ultra wide lens

most of all out of each group of lenses which one you can afford.

I recommend if your going to do alot of one style of shooting that you spend the money on the best lens you can afford. Better to have one or two high qaulity lens/es than a big collection of second rate lenses.

Regards Mark

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

I would suggest you compare first hand the difference of looking through the Nikon lenses and the other brands like Sigma and Tonika.
I did and I could not believe the difference of a lense made Nikor and the others......the other are much better I find.
the clarity of a lense made by a company the does mostly lenses is better than a company that tries to do both.

Not that there is anything wrong with Nikor.....I find the sigma a much better visual lense

There are various grades of Nikkors. Some are less expensive
lenses for the mass market, others are more expensive for the
serious photographer. For example, I have a Nikkor 70-210
f/4-5.6 and a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. The former was about 1/3
the price of the latter, the latter a much better lens.