Not underwater, but upgrade from a D70 to???

[davelew]

I have seen the same prices elsewhere as well. My main question is what lens would be the first? I will shoot above water most of the time. I will have to save for the ikelite case/strobes anyway.

The "kit" from bestbuy for basically 1500 comes with an 18-105mm vr lens. Would this be suitable when I do get the housing?

No.


For your first underwater lens, get the 60mm AF-D.
(Another option is the 105mm, which is harder to use underwater and more expensive but can get slightly better images of shy creatures in very clear water).


For your second underwater lens, get the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom.
(Another option is the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye, which is more expensive and harder to use but can be a little sharper sometimes.)
(Other options are the Nikon 10-22, Nikon 12-24, Tokina 11-16 and Tokina 12-24. The Tokina 11-16 is good for above water use and is a good combo underwater and above water lens, but not as good as the Tokina 10-17 or Nikkor 10.5 underwater.)


Also, it's not very useful underwater, but do yourself a favor and get the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 for above water use. It's one of the cheaper Nikon lenses, and is absolutely spectacular. Another good, inexpensive above water lens is the 55-200VR zoom lens.

 

[AussieByron]

For your first lens for mostly above water shots I would be pushing towards the 18-200vr.

As for underwater exactly what Davelew states above.

Regards Mark

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

What sort of above-water photos do you want to do? Wildlife?
Kid sports? Social Events? Portraits?

That will determine what lens you get.

For UW, DaveLew has it right.

 

[Warren_L]

The one thing I would add to the consideration of a wide angle lens whether you want a fisheye or rectilinear lens. The fisheyes will give you the widest angle of view, but will give you the barrel distortion that fisheyes are generally known for (ie. the curved edges). The advantage is that you can get really close, resulting in better quality lighting from your strobes, but you have to understand how to frame a shot given the distortion. Fisheyes will be somewhat less versatile above the water, but still can be used in certain circumstances. The Nikon 10.5mm, Tokina 10-17mm are fisheyes.

Rectilinear lenses keep lines straight, but generally do not have as wide an angle of view as fisheyes, so you may not be able to get as close as a fisheye and get your subject in the frame. They do have distortion, but it is 3D distortion, where objects closer to the edge of the frame appear increasingly stretched. These lenses are perhaps more versatile above water. Rectilinear lenses can sometimes have soft edges when using them with dome ports, so the addition of a diopter filter may be necessary. The Nikon 12-24mm and 10-24mm are recitilinear lenses.

 

[AKscubadiver]

Thanks for the ton of useful information!

In the air, I am pretty versitle with my current (now dead) setup. I don't do to much with portraits, but plenty of scenic landscapes, wildlife, my family while we're out and about (just the wife and dogs for now, but hey she's 7 months preggers so I want to get at least the above water stuff rolling).

I tried to break out my trusty slr setup that i've had for well over a decade but noticed a brown tinge in the view finder and several spots that look like rust. Since the glass (plastic) of the viewfinder probably isn't the culprit, i'm assuming it's on the mirror and not worth fixing. I really need to shoot something to see if they transfer to the film. Plus, it's an excuse to get a decent modern setup

 

[slowhands]

...My main question is what lens would be the first? I will shoot above water most of the time. I will have to save for the ikelite case/strobes anyway.

The "kit" from bestbuy for basically 1500 comes with an 18-105mm vr lens. Would this be suitable when I do get the housing?

That 18-105mm VR lens is not my favorite. It shoots OK on land but is not as useful underwater. It does not focus close enough, and you don't need the long focal length, you need wide instead underwater. It has a cheap plastic mount that often breaks and the aperture blades tend to come loose inside if you drop it. Repairs cost more than the lens is worth. I much prefer the lenses with metal mounts, such as the 18-200mm (or even the older 18-70mm) for land use.

The Nikon D7000 is great, but Nikon makes a lot of good cameras. The best for you? Depends on budget.

You can save a lot by buying the D3100 instead. The D3100 is readily available in the $400-500 range used, less than half the cost of the D7000. But you would be slightly limited in choice of lenses, because it only supports AF-S lenses. You could use the excellent 60mm AF-S macro, but you would have to use the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S lens instead of the Tokina, which is non-AFS. That would be a great setup.

 

[davelew]

You can save a lot by buying the D3100 instead. The D3100 is readily available in the $400-500 range used, less than half the cost of the D7000. But you would be slightly limited in choice of lenses, because it only supports AF-S lenses. You could use the excellent 60mm AF-S macro, but you would have to use the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S lens instead of the Tokina, which is non-AFS. That would be a great setup.

When I was buying my system, I had a choice between a D60 and a D90. D60 + 60mm AF-S was the same cost as D90 + 60mm AF-D (I got a mint condition used 60mm AF-D for $300, and the 60mm AF-S lenses were going for $600 at that time). I have no idea what prices are like these days, but I would check if there is a similar trap where the cheaper body makes you spend more money overall.

Also, I'm not a big fan of rectilinear ultrawides underwater, and I don't know of any fisheye lenses that will autofocus on a D3100.

 

[AussieByron]

The Camera body is often one of the most cheapest part of an Underwater setup. Say if your starting from scratch with housing, ports, domes, sync cords, arms, strobes for example for a DSLR it is very easy to spend from $4000 and upwards.

I think it makes more sense if your going to spend say minium of $4000 on everything but the camera body and lenses that you at least buy a better camera like the Nikon D7000 over something like a D3100.

Regards Mark

 

[Viz'art]

Also, I'm not a big fan of rectilinear ultrawides underwater, and I don't know of any fisheye lenses that will autofocus on a D3100.

10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye - Fisheye Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Sigma has a 10mm Fisheye that is HSM, I don't know if Ikelite support the lens, but IMO it should work nicely behind a 6 " dome port (same used for the Nikon 10.5mm), that being said the D7000 Nikon is light years ahead, both for top side and underwater use, (it is technollogically more advanced than my D300s...but not as rugged). We are at a point where mid range camera are not going improve dramatically any more, sure there will be advancement, but no NOBEL prize winning innovations, right now we have 1080p HD video, plenty of pixels (too many in most cameras), tremendous ISO/low light performance, good to excellent AF, so expect a midrange camera you buy today to do the job for some time to come.

Access to manual exposure on the D3100 is not via individual controls, that can make you life miserable underwater and even top side if you get into photography deeper. that alone is a deal breaker for me.

 

[davelew]

10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye - Fisheye Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

I stand corrected. Thanks for the information, Jean.