Should I get a 20mm or 16mm lens???

[Benthos]

Hi everyone.

I shoot a MMIIex/YS-60. Don't everyone roll there eyes. I've had it for many years and am very good at geting it to do what I want in macro and 35mm. I finaly have some extra $$ and am looking to get a WAL. I only want one and can get both for the same price. I mostly dive off the CA coast so I do alot of macro work. I like the idea of 16mm alowing me to get closer but I worry about coverage with a single strobe. I'm mainly want the lens because with 35mm in 20ft vis. you often can't see your subject through the murk and get it in the frame at the same time. I just wan't to get closer to objects. I'm not photographing huge scenic vistas in the tropics. Will a 20mm suit me fine? I worry a 16mm up close is to big and will give me lighting and "fish bowl" problems.

I would love any advice.
Thanks so much.
Rich

 

[Dee]

I had both when I had my MMIIex/YS50 rig. For reef scenes and wrecks where you want the widest coverage and no strobe to think about, the 16mm was great. However I would sometimes get the pin cushion effect on the objects closest to the lens. For instance if I was shooting a shipwreck from the front, the straight lines of the bow would be curved just a bit. Different composition usually hide it.

However I did/do more WA macro than anythng else and I preferred the 20mm for that. The single strobe w/diffuser would cover it pretty well. There was never any pincushioning or blurring of the edges. It sounds like you would be using it like I did mine, I think this is what you would be happier with.

 

[jormax]

I use the 20 and like it. My problem is low vis, so getting closer is better. Do you have a "higheye" viewfinder? That makes composing easier. W/ the WAL it is easy to get the strobe in the picute accidentally