Nauticam D90 with Nikon 18-70mm Lens

[AussieByron]

From my experience with the Sigma 17-70mm Macro (which I believe is a better lens than the Nikon 18-70mm) that its a genral purpose lens which isnt good at either end of its focal range. When I use it on wide angle work such as sharks I find that it didnt focus as quick and you had to back up to fit the whole shark in the frame. On the macro end it was a pain as it was behind the dome (i used 8 inch) and it also didnt focus as fast as the 60mm macro.

Honestly, yes you can get a decent shot from just about any lens out there under the right conditions (especially if you change the image to black and white), but after I used the Sigma 17-70mm macro I put it back in its box where it has been gathering dust.

By all means if you already have the 18-70mm Nikkor try it underwater with +4 dioptre and 8 inch dome but I wouldnt be recommending that you buy this lens to use underwater as the money can be well spent on other lenses such as the Tokina 10-17mm.

The Tokina 10-17mm FE isnt a substitute for a mid range zoom by any means. But for wide angle and large subjects it is the best choice for DX sensor cameras.

Regards Mark

 

[AussieByron]

I'm a photographer (on land) but never underwater, didn't get a housing yet.
My question is in regard to lens brand and price:

On Land - It's very understandable when someone chooses a lens like a tokina or a sigma, or any third party lens because you get almost the same benefit for a fraction of the price. Usually you sacrifice some quality although for most people it's good enough.

For scuba - When you dish out 2500$ on a housing, why would you cheap out on the lens and spend 600$ instead of 900$ ???? Why not get a proper nikon lens and have a proper system? After all, you have spent 4k on your system (housing, camera, lens) , do you really want to save that 300$ and get a sigma?? Maybe I'm missing something....

The Tokina 10-17mm FE is an exception to the rule. It is more versatile, focuses quicker, focuses closer than the Nikon 10.5mm FE. Since its introduction it has to be the most popular wide angle lens for underwater out there (reason why sometimes its hard to find new and second hand).

One does not to have to have a nikon lens to have a proper setup. If Tokina raised the price to on par with the Nikon 10.5mm people will still be buy the Tokina 10-17mm due to the features I mentioned above.

Regards Mark

 

[Cp111]

I'm not disagreeing about 10-17 - arguably the best lens for u/w on any camera. Though, for me personally, I often prefer rectilinear so use my 10-22 (with Zen 230mm ) a lot. On FF I used 17-40 and jonesed for a 16-35II. I had some 10-17 shots published recently - had to de-fish them as they were model shots on a wreck - that was a case where I wished I'd had 10-22 on instead of 10-17. I would virtually never reach for a mid-range zoom.

But the point i was making is less about what is best and more about this - if a person has a lens, even if it is a kit lens, and wants to try it, why not? Budget is a factor for a lot of people. It's not really costing him that much to try it - just the cost of a zoom ring. Everything else he'd need anyway. And he can always buy another lens down the road. I think we sometimes get wrapped up in what is "best" and forget about
1) you can make great images with lenses other than 10-17
2) shooting u/w can be fun
3) f/8 and be there

Just my $0.02!!

Cheers,
Cp

 

[AussieByron]

Hi Chris,

As stated above if you already have the 18-70mm Nikkor try it for sure but I wouldnt be recommending buy one for underwater use. But make sure they work out the cost to house this lens in a dome.

Is this lens (Nikkor 18-70mm) worth buying the $280 Nauticam port extension and $155 zoom ring???? I dont think that the port extension to use the 18-70mm underwater is not going to good to use with other than another mid zoom ( i presume the extension would be either the Nauticam 60 or 70 extension when used with the 8.5 inch dome)

Honestly if someone was on a budget I wouldnt be recommending them wasting $435 on the bits to get this lens underwater. I suggest they look at other lenses which they want to get and use this money towards that.

I can honestly say that no underwater photographer will say that the Nikkor 18-70mm is their favourite lens to use and thats a reason why its hard to find it on some port charts. How many photographers can say that the Tokina 10-17mm is their favourite wide angle lens....? I would say a very high precentage. Of course the Tokina doesnt work with every wide angle situation due to its wide FOV and distortion. Shots like under and overs, wrecks and other landscape shots with straight lines is where a rectilinear lens comes into its own.

If the OP has better land lenses I suggest they sell off the 18-70 and put the money towards a excellent lens underwater rather than just an average lens. The money for extensions, domes, and possible zoom gear goes towards a better setup.

Regards Mark

 

[Warren_L]

With a mid-range zoom like the 18-70mm on a cropped sensor, shooting large animals like sharks really only allows for silhouette shots if your goal is to get the entire animal in the frame. With the entire animal framed, you'd likely be too far back for effective strobe lighting and any ambient lighting will be pretty washed out. Not that there's anything wrong with doing this type of silhouette shot, as John's shot is quite a lovely example of what you can do with the lens.

 

[jarhed]

not sure why i'm replying to this, but I hate to see dis-information being put out.

As CP has said, it's not always about having the "best" equipment, it's about having fun and pursuing a a hobby within your means.

The 18-70 is a good lens for underwater use, for the money, it's a great lens for topside use. It's sharp, produces great sunstars and is light and versatile.

when I spent thousands of dollars on a galapagos live-aboard, I didn't give a second thought to bringing my 18-70 along as a mid range zoom.

I also brought the 10-17 Tokina FE, 12-24mm, the 60mm and the 105mm. all of these lenses saw good use underwater.

If I was buying a mid range zoom for the first time underwater, I would go for the Sigma 17-70, because it has a closer minimum focus, and can thus preform better behind a smaller dome, but that is the only reason.

I still use the 18-70 behind my new Nauticam and D7000.

Some more (color) examples from the Nikon 18-70mm:

Bottom line as most of us know, it's so much less about your gear, much more about taking pictures. Don't worry about having the best lens, just go make art. it's better this way.

have fun,
john

 

[Warren_L]

Bottom line as most of us know, it's so much less about your gear, much more about taking pictures. Don't worry about having the best lens, just go make art. it's better this way.

have fun,
john

Quite right John. I don't mean to be putting out "dis-information" as you say, but you are right in this. A lot has to do with the photographer in how the shots are taken and I do like what you have done with the lighting in the further out shots like the sharks. The darkness of the shots gives them an eerie quality. Quite nice.

However, it still holds true that with the 18-70mm you won't be able to get nearly as close as something like the 10-17mm and you range of lighting options you'll have will be much more limited.

One other consideration that needs to be included is the environment that you'll be shooting in. I sometimes put things in context of the environment that I am normally shooting in, which is limited visibility (typically around 5m) cold water. Under these conditions, shooting further out is not really an option and having a much wider lens is huge advantage.

 

[AussieByron]

I Agree fully John that its not all about the gear but how you use it.

I am not sure about "Dis-information" you refering too?

We have all agreed that if the OP was going to go out and buy a new mid range zoom that the Sigma 17-70 would be a better choice.

I have stated that if the OP already has the 18-70mm they can give it a go but they have to realise that the cost of housing this lens (Extensions and zoom gear) will cost them over $400.

The OP has already informed us that they were looking at the Tokina 11-16mm and one would presume that they havn't got a ultra wide or FE lens yet. Under these circumstances I would be recommend that the Op invest their hard earn $$$ towards their wide angle lens like the Tokina 10-17mm FE or Nikkor 10.5mm and get the required domes, ports and zoom gear required first before they consider at getting a mid zoom.

The Op hasnt stated that they are on a budget so I would be suggesting that they buy the Tokina first and the Nikkor 60mm (if they havnt done so already) and maybe a mid zoom down the track. Between these two lenses (Tokina 10-17mm and Nikkor 60mm) I would do 95% of my shooting. But of course each persons location is different.

My experience with a mid zoom was that of frustration. Tying to shoot sharks at 17mm with my Sigma 17-70 meant that I had to shoot the sharks in portait to fit them in the frame and it didnt focus as fast as the Tokina which allows for many missed shots. I basically retired it to my gear bag. My idea of shooting sharks is up close and personal and thats with the Tokina 10-17mm set at 10mm and I can shot this in both low and high vis. Getting close and getting full strobe coverage on the large subjects is what I prefer than sitting way back and shooting sharks at 70mm with very limited to no strobe lighting which you have shown with your nice examples. Colour wise it isnt my cup of tea and can understand why alot of shots taken of further out subject end up being black and white as you have displayed in your hammerhead shot.

Experience is always going to be different between each individual. This is shown in this post where I personally wouldnt bother with the 18-70mm from my experience with the better mid zoom Sigma 17-70mm. On the other hand you like the 18-70mm.

Its up to then the person recieving the information to see if it is appliable to their applications.

Regards Mark

 

[AussieByron]

Here are some recent examples showing my preferred Tokina 10-17mm. All shot at 10mm, without editing or cropping just resized for the web. Showing how I like to shoot sharks.