I have had an Olympus 4040Z and an Ikelite housing for 3 years now and have finally outgrown them. However as with the end of all grate love affairs I have that bitter sweet felling of loss. OK I can gladly leave behind the shutter lag, 4 meg pixels and a moody TTL flash system. However the weight and a single fixed port lens combination will be a sorry loss. Not to mention the +4 diopter I kept in my BCD pocket ready to be screwed into the port, for when I needed a to reduce the focusing distance.
I currently have a Canon D20 the 18-55 Kit lens and the marvelous Canon 10-22. I will be buying a Ikelite housing for the camera and maybe a second DS125 strobe, that is if I can come up with a really convincing reason for my wife. The 18-55 would be my primary lens at least in the short term, as I do not have much experience of shooting wide angle. So here are my questions, sorry if they have been posted before but I can't find the threads;

1) I would really like to have a one port fits all solution. I have seen a few articles stating that you can but the 18-55 behind Ikelites new 8" dome port #5510.81. Dose anybody know if this is possible or is the lens too long. If this is the case is there any other single port that will accommodate both the lenses. From Iklites tables this doesn’t seem to be the case. The 18-55 would be my primary lens as I do not have much experience of shooting wide angle.
2) If two ports are necessary what is the advantage of using dome (#5503) over a flat port (#5502) for a zoom lens such as the 18-55?
3) Would it be possible to attach a macro filter to the 18-55 and still focus to infinity with the lens in a dome port? I remember seeing somewhere that with a +4 diopter behind a 4" dome this was possible.

Thanks for any input or practical experience on this.

Here's the thing about sharing ports. Its not a good Idea for lenses of different physical dimensions to share ports. A port Ideally will have the center of its dome on the center of the lens. A 6" lens will need a different dome placement than a 3" lens, there is no way around it. Now the bigger the dome the more forgiving of this it is so if you are MUST share domes the larger dome is the way to go.

The 18-55 is definately not too big to use in the 8" dome. It should work ok in the 8" dome.


WA lenses MUST be housed in dome ports. Housing the 18-55 in a flat port will result in some serious vignetting and chromatic abberations at the 18mm end.



you can use a closeup filter on the 18-55 and you will still have infinity focus. BUT you must get the next longer port if you wish to do so. The 18-55 + a filter is too long and may scratch the port when using port #5503. THere is really no reason to use a closeup filter on this lens though. It does not increase the macro capability noticablly.



18mm on a crop camera is just not very wide underwater. The 10-22 is a MUCH better choice for WA. If I were you I would not bother with the 18-55 since you allready have the 10-22. If I had thouse two lenses I can not think of a single time in which I would use the 18-55 - While it is pretty good at 18mm, it is really quite bad at the 55mm end of the zoom - thus the extended range of the 18-55 is not nearly as usefull as the extra wideness you get from the 10-22.

You will also need a true macro lens. The 18-55 will not cut it for macro. Not only does it not focus close enough, as I allready said it is not good at 55mm. I would highly recomdned the EFs 60mm macro and a FLAT port. Yes for macro you want a flat port because for longer focal length lenses the distortion from using a flat port is minimal and when your subject is 2 inches away you are very likely to scratch your dome.

Williams responce is right on the money. And having both lenses myself, the 10-22 is twice the lens the 18-55 is.

>The 18-55 + a filter is too long and may scratch the port when using port >#5503.

The only suggestion I'd make to Williams post is changing the word "may" to "will" (esp at either end of the focual range, 18 and 55 mm). I had to get another port after I tried a +4 on the 18 to 55.

But it really is only a "may". It depends on the filter. Some filters are too thick, others are not, unfortunatly by the time you figure out if your filter is too thick, you have allready ruined the port.

My +4 diopter does not hit the front of the port when I tested it with the 18-55.

I've got an Ikelite #5502 for use with a Canon 60mm EF-SMacro. As it tunred out, it also fits the Canon 18-55mm EF-S as well without any diopter, but is still a flat port.

It seems to zoom/focus fine, but I've done no conclusives tests to date as it was a bonus for me to use this lens with port I bought for the macro lens.

damien

Thanks for all the input especialy William for putting me straight on flat versus domed. The only thing that I am still concerned about is using a fixed or restricted range lens. I don't know how many dives I have been on and the dive master says "OK this is a macro dive" or sum such. So everybody gose off and sets up their macro or wide angle stuff. In we jump and the dive site isn't as described or there is a whale shark (OK this rare) or this viz is naff. As all of my diving takes place on holiday and usualy on a liveaboard, I can't really dive the same site twice. That is why I suggested using a broad zoom lens, that has moderate macro and wide angle capabilities. Even if the optical quality isn't optimale. That way you are safe for 90% of all possibilites. I will just have to change my mind set a little.
It seem that the combo 18-55 and Ikelites 8" port (#5510.81) is a possability has anybody tried this out ?

I would say the #1 advantage dSLR cameras have over p&s cameras is the ability to change lenses. #2 is improved image quality when you use #1 to buy good lenses.

What you give up for these advantages is convienance. dSLR's are big, expensive, and you are limited to a single type of photography (ie either WA or macro).

A compact digital camera sacrifices ultra high quality for a highly convienant package. A nice p&s camera will offer 90% of the image quality of a dSLR in a convienant package.

You must deside, what would you rather have?

1. A buch of shots that look good on your computer screen as well as the largest commonly printed size (8x10).

or

2. A handfull of shots shots but they are national geographic quality and still look great when printed the size of a billboard.

If you answer #1 you are best off with a p&s if you answer #2 you are best off with a dSLR and the best lenses.

Using a dSLR and lower quality lenses like the 18-55 has most of the disadvantages of a DSLR and the disadvantages of a p&s. You spend big $$ for the dSLR, you put up with the large bulky camera. And then dont end up with immages that are significantly better (and perhapse even worse. Most p&s cameras will do much better at macro than the 18-55 will on a 20D) than what you could have gotten with a p&s.

You can get great images with a p&s by the way. Give a professional photogapher a p&s on one dive and a dSLR on the next and 99.9% of the people in the world would not be able to tell the resulting images apart.

To answer your question you were asking more directly.

If it is not obvious which would be better, it does not matter which lens you choose(WA vs macro).

In order to get that perfect national geographic shot that the dSLR shooter is after you need to go slow and be very concentrated at the task at hand.
When you get into this mode you will never notice the lack of ability to change from WA to macro.

If you are shooting macro and looking for shrimp. If you notice the whale shark there is something wrong. You will never find the shrimp(and get a good shot of it) if you are looking for a whale shark at the same time. The opposite holds as well. If you are shooting WA and are looking at the overall reef structure, you will not be nearly close enough to notice the rare goby hiding in a hole.

Again if you desire to document everything you see, you will be able to do that better with a p&s camera. For these kinds of shooting there is no advantage to a dSLR only disadvantages.

If you are not puting 100% of your attention into the photography, A simpler camera will produce better images than a complicated one.

I second what William said. If you concentrate on shooting macro on a dive it doesn't matter how many manta rays are swimming around because you won't even see them!

I have the combo you just described. anon 20D, Ike housing and two Ike strobes.
For macro I use a canon 100 2.8, great lense but a bit too long. I would buy the 60mm Macro if given the choice again.
When I'm not sure about the dive site I use a fairly inexpensive Canon 28-105 3.5 with a +4 close up lens. After some trial and error I start gettting good shots with this lens although is not exactly great quality glass.
For wide I have a 17-35 Tamron. At this moment this lens is royally kicking my butt. I get beautiful staff with it topside but underwater the lens is way smarter than me.
This combo of 3 lenses can be housed with 2 Ike ports.
Hope this info helps you.

Hugo

I have a question for all you D-SLR photographers.....

I've been using a Canon S-30 underwater for years with great results. I'm about to step up to the Canon Rebel XT, and am considering using it for my underwater photos using an Ikelite housing.

My question is, since there is no LCD preview screen on a D-SLR, is it difficult to frame your shots? Can you actually use the optical view port, or do you really have to "use the force", take you best aim, and see what you get?

Thanks in advance.

Hi,

I recently switched to Canon 350D with Ikelite housing and can say without question that the D-SLR is superior. I had the exact concerns that you mention about the optical view finder.

My experience is that you quickly get over the limited view of the viewfinder, and that any restriction in view is easily over come by the near instant response time.

You can use the LCD for preview of shot after they're taken, but not as a view finder.

The decision is not one that you will regret.

damien