Macro, wide, fisheye

Anyone can share his experience using above lenses? Any info is appreciated

Your question is pretty broad. Everyone has used some or all of these lenses Can you be more specific with your questions? What information are you looking for?

If you haven't checked out the Sticky, click the Pink Link in my signature and head over there for some general discussion and more links to some of the most popular underwater lenses.

If you're looking for examples of images each lens can produce, have a wander through some of the past threads in the main uw section - sometimes a search with the lens (like 60mm macro, Sigma 17-70 etc) will pull up image heavy threads as some users put the lens they shot in their posts (sometimes).

Hope this helps you get started.

kreuzerkrieg:

Anyone can share his experience using above lenses? Any info is appreciated

Click to expand...

Re: macro, wide angle, fisheye.

I have used a 90macro lens in a housing, you need a flat port:


I have used wide angle, a 28w/film/close focus, you need a dome port - mine is a 6inch dome port:



Now, I am about to switch to digital so the lens sizes will differ especially if you have the sensor size in the DSLR that is 1.5 larger for lens size-so you would calculate the above lenses to approx. 45 macro and a 19 wide angle.

Don't forget about the strobe as it is very important.

ok, here we go, first, my setup is canon 400 XTI (S size censor, crop 1.6), ikelite housing, flat port, 60mm efs macro, two ikelite substrobes
I made my first UW photo session a week ago and I'm somewhat not satisfied with results, there is two things I want to improve - DoF and wider composition to catch. first depends on lens and light, as I understand shorter focal length lens will give me the desirable DoF, as well it will give me more angle to catch, so I may buy 14mm and actually it will solve all my problems, but the L series pretty expensive. So the more exact question is, do I need 14mm or more will be sufficient, do I need fisheye or ultra wide angle will be ok. is the fisheye's distortion noticeable under water?

Caymaniac, as I understand you prefer two prime lenses setup, can you give more broader answer on which occasion you gonna use each
BTW, Great photos

I wouldn't ever trade my 60mm macro for a wide angle. I like to shoot small stuff and close ups, not wrecks or scenics. So your lens choice has to be based first on the type of photos you like. It sounds like the 60 is not the lens for your purpose.

Yes, a fisheye's distortion is noticeable underwater. Sigma's 15 is a great lens and is a popular underwater lens choice - DOF it has! Fisheyes are more of a specialty lens than an every day lens for most people as many viewers find a few images with the distortion are pleasing to look at, but too many and it becomes much less so. Tokina make a great zoom 10-17 fisheye...fisheye is not so noticeable at the long end, more noticeable at the short end. Good choice. Both need dome ports as does any wide angle lens.

Non-fisheye wide angles are good options, too. There are a few in the 10-22 and 12-24 range. I adore Canon's 10-22 and the Sigma version at 10-20 is awesome value - can't go wrong with either of those.

You can increase DOF by closing down your aperture (more at f22 than at f14), but a macro lens is not built to give you that wide field of view or massive DOF. Moving back and increasing distance to your subject will also help. Something like the Sigma 17-70 will give you the option to do close ups and small creatures and give you a very pleasant field of view (and accompanying DOF) at the wider end.

You can see some 60mm macro recent stuff by following the Recent Dives link in my signature.

Primes are lovely, but sometimes they aren't exactly what a situation calls for underwater. Make sure that any prime you are looking at (well, any lens) is supported by the housing ports - not all are!

Alcina, thanks, it was comprehensive answer. I just want to point out, f22 or even f14 not always possible, it depends on the light, I guess you need a lot of it in case your lens is f2.8, am I right?
I have a chance to get cheap Cannon 50mm f1.8 - is it useful for anything underwarer, is there any additional value if I buy lenses with f1.4 or even f1.2, will they lack DOF?

BTW, great link, I got printed version of your UW photo guide, will read later
thanks again

I use the Canon 50mm 1.8 with a close-up diopter as a cheap macro lens. I'm sure the quality is not as good as an actual macro lens, but it's good enough for me. The links below were taken with this setup:index
index

swankenstein:

I use the Canon 50mm 1.8 with a close-up diopter as a cheap macro lens. I'm sure the quality is not as good as an actual macro lens, but it's good enough for me. The links below were taken with this setup:index
index

Click to expand...

How are these far from originals, is it the raw content as shot, or you spent some time correcting colors/removing noise in photoshop. In any case, excelent photos

kreuzerkrieg:

Alcina, thanks, it was comprehensive answer. I just want to point out, f22 or even f14 not always possible, it depends on the light, I guess you need a lot of it in case your lens is f2.8, am I right?
I have a chance to get cheap Cannon 50mm f1.8 - is it useful for anything underwarer, is there any additional value if I buy lenses with f1.4 or even f1.2, will they lack DOF?

BTW, great link, I got printed version of your UW photo guide, will read later
thanks again

Click to expand...

You have two Ike 125s, that's all the light you should need for macro even at f22.

If you are trying to light a wider scene, you'll sacrifice aperture but you'll gain DOF from the wider lens and usually working distance. Your strobes should still be sufficient for a good range of apertures in relatively clear or bright water. If you are shooting in dark waters, you have to sacrifice more aperture and that means more DOF. In this case using something like the Sigma 15 is a good option because you can open the aperture up and still maintain a pretty good DOF - it's just so vast on this lens.

1.8 and 2.8 are useless underwater with a macro lens. OK, that's a bit extreme, but you just aren't going to go there very often as the DOF is so narrow it's almost pointless. Those numbers, in application, mean nothing when you are using external strobes - f14 on a f5.6 lens is the same as f14 on a 1.8 lens. I rarely drop below f9 on my 60mm macro and usually I set it on f13 or f14 and forget it or only close down. The DOF on that lens, when you are that close to your subject, is still pretty thin, but enough for what I want.

NO, the plastic fantastic is not useful underwater really. It's a fun topside lens, though, and for under $80 a must have in the bag, imho. But for uw? No. You already have the 60mm macro.

I think perhaps there is some confusion on a variety of levels. Perhaps if you could tell us exactly what you are trying to shoot, or show some examples, we could help in a clearer way.

kreuzerkrieg:

How are these far from originals, is it the raw content as shot, or you spent some time correcting colors/removing noise in photoshop. In any case, excelent photos

Click to expand...

Those are the originals except I take them in RAW, so I converted them to JPEG and obviously shrunk them down to fit on my website.