Which lense to start DSLR underwater photography?

[BUDMANOK]

the title was What lens to start with not macro vs w/a. I think for a beginner the w/a is best.

 

[rusti999]

just to be sure: when you talk about 60mm macro, are you talking about a DX or FX?

---------- Post added March 31st, 2013 at 05:53 PM ----------

on Ken Rockwell's Website Nikon 60mm AF-D Micro I found this:


You've mentioned that the 60mm provides a longer working distance underwater. What do you mean by "longer working distance"? I mean: how close do you have to bee to take a macro of a small critter (e.g. a 2cm nudibranch)? If I understand Ken Rockwell right, then I always have to be 7cm close to the subject... But that cant be true..?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

The 60mm works for both DX and FX. With DX, there is a 1.5 crop factor (effectively becomes 90mm).

Note that Ken Rockwell is comparing the 60mm with the 105mm, both macro lenses, which by design can achieve 1:1 magnification ratio. The 35mm f1.8 is not a macro lens, its magnification ratio is 1:6.25 (0.16x magnification), which means objects will appear smaller, not necessarily what you want when you want to take a picture of small critters and when you want to fill the frame. More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

Longer working distance means you can be farther apart from the subject and still be able to fill the frame. This is compared to the 35mm. The working distance for the 105mm is even longer compared to the 60mm. So why not go to the 105mm, as recommended by Ken Rockwell, you might ask? Depends on the kind of environment you are working in. Underwater, because water absorbs light, you want to get as close as possible to the subject, but not too close. Also, if the water is murky the longer working distance will work against you, because the longer the working distance is the more particulates might be a problem in your shot. As you can see from the responses you got so far, for a lot of people the 60mm achieves a good compromise.

---------- Post added March 31st, 2013 at 05:29 PM ----------

the title was What lens to start with not macro vs w/a. I think for a beginner the w/a is best.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the OP did mention in his original post that he likes to shoot close-up shots of marine critters, and that he doesn't yet favor wide-angle shots. Also, in my personal experience, macro is easier than wide-angle.

 

[Darnold9999]

Also agree you probably don't want to start with the 105. While it is my favorite lens for macro, far too often conditions are just not optimal for this lens. If the vis is not great it does not work very well. Also it really is only for the very small, while the 60 can do a decent shot of even larger creatures. It is the lens I take when I don't know a site or what I am going to see.

Here is one of my favorite shots of a wobbegong - taken with the 60mm lens. The 105 is just not as flexible.

 

[Warren_L]

happy easter everybody and thank you very much for your replys!

Warren, the photos in your above facebook album from the Philippines are AWESOME! I would like to figure out which photos are taken with the 60mm lense. Are the other non-macro shots (turtle, red lobster, self portrait, giant clamps) also taken with the 60mm? Which Nikon DSLR and which strobes did you use? Assuming that I aquire the required macro skills - you think I could achieve similar results with this lense on my D5100?

Regards, Jan

Thank you Jan, I appreciate the comment. As a side note, if you ever get a chance to dive the Philippines, it is really amazing for macro photography. For the non-macro shots, the ones you mention are all taken with the 60mm from a slight distance, not more than a few feet max. The self portrait is obviously from arms length, but the rest are about 2-3 feet distance. Those shots would not be possible with the 105mm since you would be too far back (to fill the frame the same way) for there to be any effective light. In the turtle shot (this guy was pretty decent size, I would estimate his carapice was close to 4 ft in length) you can see that the strobe lighting was really only effective to just behind his head, the rest of his body you can see is greenish blue.

My camera is a D3x so being a full frame, it has true angle of view of a 60mm lens. On a 1.5x cropped sensor, the lens is still a 60mm lens and min focusing distance and other characteristics of the lens will not change, but the angle of view will be more like a 90mm lens. With Your D5100 I do not see an issue getting the same sort of results - but there are some differences. To get the same angle of view you have to be a bit further back. This will limit not what you do so much with macro, but with how big a subject you can shoot as a non-macro shot (portrait) and still get effective lighting. With a shot like the turtle shot, since that is about as far back as you'd likely be able to go before the whole subject gets washed out, shooting that same shot with a cropped sensor camera like the 5100 would mean that you'd have less background in your image as you would be tighter to the subject (at the same physical distance to the subject when you are in the water).

The other thing about the 105mm is that it is going to be quite a bit more difficult to spot your subject to frame it. At least that is what I find. This is because as you are looking through the viewfinder, the 105's angle of view is so much more narrow than the 60mm, that if you make a small move of the lens, your subject can jump out of your frame much more easily with the 105 than the 60.

As for wide angle vs macro, you ultimately would likely want to do both. However, if you have an interest in macro, I think it is far easier to get decent results shooting macro than you are with wide angle. This is what I find for myself personally. The issue with wide angle primarily is getting the lighting right, which can be difficult. There are other factors that perhaps are out of your control such as visibility. If the visibility is bad, you have a much better chance of getting decent results with macro than with wide angle. And as you can see, with the 60mm you are not limited only to macro as you do have some flexibility to do other shots.

---------- Post added April 1st, 2013 at 02:01 AM ----------

just to be sure: when you talk about 60mm macro, are you talking about a DX or FX?

---------- Post added March 31st, 2013 at 05:53 PM ----------

on Ken Rockwell's Website Nikon 60mm AF-D Micro I found this:


You've mentioned that the 60mm provides a longer working distance underwater. What do you mean by "longer working distance"? I mean: how close do you have to bee to take a macro of a small critter (e.g. a 2cm nudibranch)? If I understand Ken Rockwell right, then I always have to be 7cm close to the subject... But that cant be true..?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

I would forget Rockwell. Sometimes I find his comments have a confusing effect on people.

Anyway, the 60mm has a shorter working distance than the 105mm. Both are 1:1 macro lenses (meaning they both do the same 1:1 magnification), but at different distances. The 105 you have to be quite a bit further back to achieve this. The 105 is good at getting shots of things that are perhaps more difficult to get close to, but there is a limit to how far back you can go before your lighting loses it's effectiveness. In underwater shooting, generally closer is better as far as lighting is concerned.

 

[ozzydamo]

The 60mm works for both DX and FX. With DX, there is a 1.5 crop factor (effectively becomes 90mm).

Note that Ken Rockwell is comparing the 60mm with the 105mm, both macro lenses, which by design can achieve 1:1 magnification ratio. The 35mm f1.8 is not a macro lens, its magnification ratio is 1:6.25 (0.16x magnification), which means objects will appear smaller, not necessarily what you want when you want to take a picture of small critters and when you want to fill the frame. More information here:

Macro photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longer working distance means you can be farther apart from the subject and still be able to fill the frame. This is compared to the 35mm. The working distance for the 105mm is even longer compared to the 60mm. So why not go to the 105mm, as recommended by Ken Rockwell, you might ask? Depends on the kind of environment you are working in. Underwater, because water absorbs light, you want to get as close as possible to the subject, but not too close. Also, if the water is murky the longer working distance will work against you, because the longer the working distance is the more particulates might be a problem in your shot. As you can see from the responses you got so far, for a lot of people the 60mm achieves a good compromise.

---------- Post added March 31st, 2013 at 05:29 PM ----------



You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the OP did mention in his original post that he likes to shoot close-up shots of marine critters, and that he doesn't yet favor wide-angle shots. Also, in my personal experience, macro is easier than wide-angle.

The nikon 35mm 1.8 will be the easiest lens to use straight up, good in ambient light if you have no strobe and is pretty cheap to buy and useful on land- especially coming from a point and shoot- great for portraits of other divers and fish. On an aquatica ad7000 there is no vignetting using it in the macro port(flat port).

This was taken with a nikon 35mm DSC_0730 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The 60mm is a great lens to have so is the 105mm and the tokina 10/17mm FE, But are not so useful on land..........

 

[fran2bo3]

I don't think anyone has mentioned, but the only available housing for the D5100 is from Ikelite: I have recently bought a D5100 so will be interested to see how you get on. Thinking of the 85mm Micro/Macro lens myself