I bought a Nikon D90. What lense do y'all recommend?

[Warren_L]

There really isn't a good all around lens for underwater work in the dSLR realm. The issue with the 17-55mm is that, as Mark points out, it is not really all that wide, especially on a cropped sensor. With that focal range, you're likely going to be doing portraiture so you may as well have a 60mm macro on and have the added flexibility to shoot macro. If you're thinking of shooting largish animals like sharks and mantas, I prefer a nice wide angle or fisheye, and if you want the flexibility of a wide angle zoom, the Tokina 10-17 sounds like a good choice.

Just remember that it is hard to have one lens to do a good job on a lot of different things. The nature of shooting dSLR is that you have to really pre-determine the kind of dive and shooting you wish to do, especially if you really want to get the awesome shots.

One thing that might be an advantage with a f/2.8 lens is to aid autofocuing, but other than that, shooting wide out at f/2.8 isn't really going to be much of an issue unless shooting ambient light.

 

[randytay]

I would have to disagree with going for the Nikon 17-55 f2.8.

1. Its an expensive lenes at $1250+. You can buy something like the Tokina 10-17mm and the Nikon 60mm for the same money

2. 17mm isnt that wide for underwater work

3. The lens is phyiscally large and will not fit into Ikelite ports if you decide to buy an Ikelite System

4. Have a f2.8 lens underwater really isnt an issue unless your shooting sunjects in ambient light. Most people are shooting with strobes for underwater work anyway.

If you looking at something as a general purpose have you thought about the Tokina 10-17mm with a 1.4 teleconverter. Great for CFWA and you can use it behind a 4 inch mini dome.

Regards Mark

1. And I am going to imagine you can change those lens underwater too If cost is the main issue, get a p&S.

2. Depends what you are shooting. Its about 25mm fov and if that is not enough for underwater work, I wonder how divers worked using 35mm nikonos.

3. I'm pretty sure one can buy a housing to fit it.

4. f2.8 is not just for shooting ambient, it allows better af. Ever wonder why you AF is hunting when you are at f5.6 before the strobes goes off?

Investing in a DSLR alone is expensive, and to invest in it just for diving is even more expensive. Having a 17-55 f2.8 gives you a really versatile combo that is unmatched, unless you have a D700/D3 with a 24-70 combo

Seriously, if you are buying a Tokina lens, why bother with the D90? A D3000 would suffice and save you plenty, especially if you are complaining about costs. I'm pretty sure the underwater case would be much cheaper for the D3000 too.

 

[randytay]

There really isn't a good all around lens for underwater work in the dSLR realm. The issue with the 17-55mm is that, as Mark points out, it is not really all that wide, especially on a cropped sensor. With that focal range, you're likely going to be doing portraiture so you may as well have a 60mm macro on and have the added flexibility to shoot macro. If you're thinking of shooting largish animals like sharks and mantas, I prefer a nice wide angle or fisheye, and if you want the flexibility of a wide angle zoom, the Tokina 10-17 sounds like a good choice.

Just remember that it is hard to have one lens to do a good job on a lot of different things. The nature of shooting dSLR is that you have to really pre-determine the kind of dive and shooting you wish to do, especially if you really want to get the awesome shots.

One thing that might be an advantage with a f/2.8 lens is to aid autofocuing, but other than that, shooting wide out at f/2.8 isn't really going to be much of an issue unless shooting ambient light.

How does 17mm on a cropped sensor be "likely to be used for portraiture"? I know the occasional whacky composition with a wide-angle for portraiture (I use the 14-24 twice for portraits), but likely to be used for portraiture?

 

[AussieByron]

1. And I am going to imagine you can change those lens underwater too If cost is the main issue, get a p&S.

2. Depends what you are shooting. Its about 25mm fov and if that is not enough for underwater work, I wonder how divers worked using 35mm nikonos.

3. I'm pretty sure one can buy a housing to fit it.

4. f2.8 is not just for shooting ambient, it allows better af. Ever wonder why you AF is hunting when you are at f5.6 before the strobes goes off?

Investing in a DSLR alone is expensive, and to invest in it just for diving is even more expensive. Having a 17-55 f2.8 gives you a really versatile combo that is unmatched, unless you have a D700/D3 with a 24-70 combo

Seriously, if you are buying a Tokina lens, why bother with the D90? A D3000 would suffice and save you plenty, especially if you are complaining about costs. I'm pretty sure the underwater case would be much cheaper for the D3000 too.

1. Cost isnt an issue is usability. The 17-55mm isnt an macro lens and 17mm isnt wide enough for your wide angle work. So you basically have bought an expensive lens which for underwater work is a bit of a dud when you compare it to the much cheaper and ever popular Tokina 10-17mm and the ever popular 60mm Nikkor Macro. The Nikon 17-55 is also a DX lens which means it wont work of Fx format cameras like D700 or D3x.

2. The divers with 35mm Nikonos Film cameras used the very popular 15mm Nikonos lens. To this day this lens has some of the best glass available out there. With the 17-55mm Nikon Dx lens you can't shoot macro and you cant shoot wide angle so what can you use it for? An expensive lens to use for things that are not macro and wide angle (which is most of your underwater shooting).

3. Ikelite do not make a port for the Nikon 17-55 as its too big. Subal and Aquatica do.

4. My Tokina never hunts at f8/f9. I dont know why you want to be shooting with f2.8 with strobes anyway????...even f5.6 with strobes...?????

Seriously you can't just go out and buy an expensive lens and think that it will do everything because its expensive. Yes the Tokina 10-17mm lens is about half the price than the Nikon 17-55 but it takes an awesome wide angle shot underwater. I could be bold to say that to every Nikon 17-55 f2.8 dx lens used for underwater work there be easierly 50 Tokina 10-17mm in both Nikon and Canon mounts being used and used by professionals and serious amateurs. Take into account the 60mm for example and it would have to be one of the most popular lenses used by Nikon underwater photographers.

As a matter of fact the Sigma 17-70mm Macro out performs the Nikon 17-55 Dx as an underwater general purpose lens and its less than half the cost.

Actually if you price the cheapest housings available for the Nikon D90 and the D3000 it will be Ikelite housings and they both priced at $1400. But then again you can't fit the 17-55 in an Ikelite housing as its too big. You would then have to look at something like a Aquatica or Subal. Unfortunately they dont make housings for the D3000. The Nikon D90 is where they start and work their way up the Nikon's product line.

Regards Mark

 

[Viz'art]

Just to chime in, the 17-55mm is IMO a poor performer underwater, as mentionned earlier, it lacks in field of view and close up capabillity, great top side lens but very bland underwater.

and no offense but the Nikonos 35mm was as usefull as a lens cap on a Nikonos, it just happenned to be the cheapest lens you could get and certainly was not the best, with refraction it gave more or less the same field of view as a 50mm top side (or for that matter a 35mm on a APS DSLR behind a dome port), the 15mm was what we all got in the end, keeping the 35mm for macro with extension tubes.

Randytay you seem to snob the Tokina 10-17mm as an inferior lens??? it is quite the opposite, it is as close as a perfectly designed for underwater photography lens than any other lens ever made.

Every major photographer's who shoot with APS sized DSLR his likely to have one in is bag and I actually refrain from going to full frame for underwater on account of this lens, that is how useful this lens is, and trust me, I have quite the choice of cameras and housing due to my job description.

 

[davelew]

Every major photographer's who shoot with APS sized DSLR his likely to have one in is bag and I actually refrain from going to full frame for underwater on account of this lens, that is how useful this lens is, and trust me, I have quite the choice of cameras and housing due to my job description.

Jean knows of what he speaks.

There are four Nikon mount lenses that are used for 90%+ of professional underwater photography with Nikon SLRs: Either the Tokina 10-17mm or the Nikkor 10.5mm for wideangle work, and either the Nikkor 60mm or Nikkor 105mm for macro work.

 

[Warren_L]

How does 17mm on a cropped sensor be "likely to be used for portraiture"? I know the occasional whacky composition with a wide-angle for portraiture (I use the 14-24 twice for portraits), but likely to be used for portraiture?

It doesn't, but since it is a zoom (you do remember how these work??) it can go to 55mm, so it is moreso on the 55mm end of the lens, you would use more for portraiture. The 17mm end is wide, but if it were me, would likely not be wide enough for my liking. I would prefer to use a fisheye or a wide zoom like the 12-24mm in this situation. The 17-55mm would definitely not be my first choice. While there is some benefit in trying to get a lens with as much versatility as possible, I find that personally I would prefer to make the choice one way or the other and go with a wider lens for wide angle work or a lens like the 60mm for macro and portraiture. The 17-55mm wouldn't even make it into my bag for underwater work, but would be a decent topside lens.

Just curious, if you use the 14-24mm underwater, how do you get around the issue of corner sharpness? I find the corners are soft, and without the ability to front mount a diopter I cannot correct for this. Even with a 9.25" megadome I am still finding soft corners.

 

[Warren_L]

Take into account the 60mm for example and it would have to be one of the most popular lenses used by Nikon underwater photographers.

Easily my most used macro lens by far hands down. I have the 105mm as well in my bag, but it comes out for special purposes primarily.

 

[AussieByron]

Easily my most used macro lens by far hands down. I have the 105mm as well in my bag, but it comes out for special purposes primarily.

Hi Warren,

I would have to agree with you there. For shooting Macro I use my 60mm 90% of the time and have the 105mm for when I need it.

Cheers Mark

 

[Prostardiver]

Hi All,

I just came upon this thread and I find the information fascinating. I am looking at the D90 as my next camera, and my first step in the DSLR world. I will spend lots of time on dry land getting as used to the controls of the camera as I am with my SCUBA gear. And, yes Ameri180304, I do agree with the opinions that your diving should be second nature to you before adding a camera to the mix.

Anyway, don't think that your discussion here is going to only one person. Others appreciate it too.

Thanks,
Jeff G.