One of the most common questions on this forum is what lenses should I choose for my DSLR underwater? And I thought I would take a different approach to answering it.

A recent and on-going project of mine involved an image submission of over 200 pix - with a good variety of types of UW shots. Of these 177 were taken with Nikon DSLRs (the rest on slide film or topside) and I thought it would be interesting to share which lenses produced the most publishable shots.

I realise that this isn't perfect, as certain lenses (like the 10.5mm) are probably not ideal for beginners and the results are also skewed by my style of photography. But I hope that it provides some interest and use. Below is a table of my lenses with % of shots from each in the collection.

10.5mm FE - 32%
12-24mm - 1%
16mm FE - 19%
17-35mm - 6%
20mm - 1%
28-70mm - 12%
60mm - 8%
105mm - 20%

You can see some of these iimages here: http://www.amustard.com/newgal/

As you can see, a third of the images (57 in total) were taken with the 10.5mm FE. And if I add together the 10.5 and 16mm they account for >50% of all the images. Also of interest is that I find the 105mm twice as productive as the 60mm macro lens, however if you add together the 60 and the 28-70 they equal the 105mm.

So to rank them in order of importance (in productivity):

10.5mm, 105mm, 16mm, 28-70mm, 60mm, 17-35mm, 12-24mm, 20mm.

Alex

p.s. I also own a Sigma 150mm macro lens, but have bought it since making this submission.

Alex. What factors govern your choice between the 16mm FE and the 12-24 ?

I've not used my 15mm FE much since I started using the 10-22mm since the low end of the 10-22 has about the same FOV as the 15mm FE.

Interesting.

I would have to look, which i am too lazy to do...but, i have 3 or 400 with a major UW stock agency.

I think probably 65% are from a NikV and 15mm.
20% with my 12-24mm
12% with the 105
3% with the 60mm

My next submission will be skewed toward the 10.5 and 105 i think.

But if you look at Alex and my stuff together the big thing that stands out...if you are looking to sell images....shoot WA.

Good question, Herb.

The main reason was that I already owned a 16mm and not a 12-24mm.

I also think that the corners are better on the fisheye than on the rectilinear. I actually got the 12-24mm from a friend, who was happy to swap it one of the two 16mm I had, because he prefers the 16mm.

Since getting the 12-24mm I use them about 50:50.

Alex

I totally agree with Mike about selling images. Wide and then wider if you can. The 10.5mm is invaluable as it allows you to create space, which is always what advertising or editorial clients want.

Alex

Totally agree - outside Scuba Mags and Science Textbooks macro doesn't sell very well.

And most Scuba Mags prefer wide angle as well.

M

Interesting thread, Alex

When I used to shoot film the 16mm fisheye was the money lens. I used it for the lions share of my wide angle work and the diver shots often I took with it were often the ones selected for the cover shot of the magazine for the stories I submitted.

In fact, not counting full page spreads, advertisements, brochures, etc, I just took a quick count of the magazine cover shots I've done. Out of 36 covers the breakdown by lens is as follows:

16mm (10.5) - 27 covers
24mm - 1 cover
20mm - 4 covers ( a couple of topside shots)
60mm - 4 covers

For macro work, the 60mm is king in British Columbia. Primarily, because it
is easier to get close to marine life here. Although I do tend to use the 60mm
quite a bit in the tropics for macro work and favor the 105mm for fish portraits.

Since switching over to digital last year (D70), I have been using the 10.5mm for divers and have found the results compare with what I could achieve while shooting with film using the 16mm.

In any event, I agree that the widest lens possible is often best for wide angle work. If a photographer could only afford two lenses, they could easily do great work with a 10.5 and perhaps a 60mm or 105mm lens.

Cheers all,

Jett

Hey Jett you got a website?

http://jettbritnell.com/

I was browsing it the other day, great photos, but some of the galleries are not working in my Mac.

Luiz

Well thats easy isn't it.

Surprising i don't know him when he is from the same place as me, or at least where i used to be...

Hi all,

My website was supposed to be be pulled down so my wife can fix it. I myself am reading up on Golive CS2. When I have/find time... I plan to revamp it.

PS Mike V- I live in Port Coquitlam and was a contributing editor for DIVER magazine since the early 90's.

Regards, Jett

Hi Jett

Yea checked out your site, lots of diver in there. Good stuff
I grew up in North Delta, then moved out to South Surrey, did most of my training at Ocean Pro...now i'm even further south...

Alex:

How many of the 16mm FE shots were on digital? Point being the 16mm on slide film is the rough equivelent of the 10.5mm on digital--potentially strengthening your case for 180 deg FOV.

As a beginner, I get most of my "keepers" with the 60mm but the ones I like to look at are WA.

You are right about the 16mm. But the numbers above were for the 177 digital pictures in the book.

There are also 43 film shots in there too. Here are the stats for them:

16mm - 44%
17-35mm - 25%
60mm - 9%
105mm - 16%
15mm Nik V - 5%

So there is actually even more of a fisheye bias there.

Alex

Sooo, you gonna tell us what it is for?

Alex,

Have you had all the lenses over the period during which the pictures were taken.

The hit rate of the 12-24 seems very low but I'm wondering if that is because you have had it for relatively less time than the others ?

This is particularly when compared to the 17-35 which you used a lot with film. Has your attitude to this range changed ?

Mark

You are spot on, Mark. I have never owned a 12-24mm - I have one on long term loan at the moment, but before this Autumn I have always relied on borrowing one from friends for dives.

The other fact is the 17-35mm is an awesome lens and while the 12-24mm covers the same range in DX it is not in the same league when it comes to optical quality. So while I never regretted putting the 17-35mm because the slides were always so sharp and rich in colour, I don't have the same confidence in the 12-24 (although as I use it more so it is growing). Optically I favour the 16mm on the DX cameras, instead of the 12-24mm, it is more compact, has better corners, but can't zoom.

I would also add that the nature of this project is very general UW stuff and therefore requires plenty of WA shots.

Last week I sent a set of 67 shots off for something to do with fish. And the bias was v different:

10.5 - 6%
16 - 9%
12-24 - 3%
17-35 - 6%
28-70 - 19%
60 - 15%
105 - 42%

I am actually finding doing these stats on my own images quite educational.

Alex

The lens you use probably depends very much on your interests (and if appropriate, market). I shoot predominantly natural history in temperate waters so the mainstay when I shot Nikon/Fuji was the 60mm micro - a superb lens. Now I use more of a mix of 100 and 50 macros from Canon on FF - perhaps using the 100 a bit more than the 50, and this is probably due to its superb focus even in less than ideal conditions.

I very, very rarely shoot wider than 20 although I do own a 15 fisheye so I could do so. I'm tempted by a 35/1.4 which could be a lot of fun......

I use the 12-24 when I'm not sure what I'm going to encounter and want to cover my bases. It worked great with great whites at Guadalupe; used it exclusively there. Excellent big critter lens when the critters won't put their eyeball right on it.

My present lens uw collection:

10.5 fisheye
12-24
60mm macro
105mm macro

Topside also includes 24-120, 70-200, 2x teleconverter

Eric
www.ehanauer.com

10.5 all the way. ca 80 % off my shots are with this lens. Why becauce off the dramatic the wide angle and the posability to tell a story with the lens

I have use 16mm but only with my 10.5 I see the dramatic off freediving. The 16mm is better for documentary and portait shots.

Give me a D2X and a 10,5 and I would be king :-)

Yep, 10.5mm of all the shots published this year I have a 95% ratio of 10.5mm including 2 front page and 2 double page spread. the lens has kick, but it bites also, I've had my share of strobe showing off in the corner well I guess score one more for digital, yuo can correct these mishap while still wet

Cheers

P.S. Mike you got an Amphibico Phenom ! Dude, that's nice.

Want to help me pay the Royal Bank for my Visa payments?!

Naw, i'm in debt enough as it is from working in a camera store and with Aquatica lord its expensive to work sometime

Cheers buddy

We shoot with:

10.5
12-24
60 micro
105 micro

In film days, most w/a was Nik 15mm and some 20mm.

Must say that the 10.5 was a revelation when we started using it and although you must be careful, it delivers geast results.

Haven't used the 12-24 enough to judge it on fair grounds but its performance at 12mm behind Aquatica's 8" dome was more than pleasing, even when compared to some of our scanned Nik 15mm shots.

Form macro 60mm has been our tool of choice althought for fish portraits, especailly full body shots of larger specimens like groupers and the like, we will be experimenting with our 35mm f/2, which, in film days, was an outstanding housed lens.

Hi Jett, good to hear from you

MIchel

Bonjour, Michel,

I have ben lurking at Wetpixel for some time....so perhaps time it is time that I contributed some comments. Hope all is well with you and Danielle.

Best regards, Jett

Has anyone tried the Tamron SP 11-18mm ?

I bought the Nikon 10.5 mm but sent it back because it was physically to short and vignetted in the housing I built.

I really wanted to shoot those half under and over shots and the Tamron has the dimensions I need . Minimum focus on the Tamron is 9.8 inches.

Marc

I mostly shoot with the 12-24 and the 60 mm micro. They are the most versatile lenses. I also shoot the the 10.5 and the 105 mm micro. Those two lenses as mentioned above give you the best shots at respectively macro and wide angle.

12-24
10.5
60
105

For land use I shoot the 17-55. I bring an extension ring as there are times when this can be a good lens. Such as small to medium size fish or wild life.

This is turning into an interesting thread. Rather than the normal what lenses do you reccommend, it is a real life "the lenses I use" discussion. Quite a different perspective. Although I started this discussion as a Nikon thread it would be good to hear what Canon users favour too.

Alex

Ok, I didn't contribute before, so here it goes. For wide angle I use the 10.5 almost exclusively, when I am expecting big fish that don't come too close to the camera I use the 16 fisheye. For macro and small fish I've been using the 105 micro, and for medium to large fish the 60 micro. To my taste, the best shots were produced with either the 10.5 or the 105. Unfortunately, I don't sell that much images to check which ones sell the most.

I have a 17-55 which is awesome on land, and I plan to use it UW soon, but I don't expect to use it as much as the ones mentioned above.

Luiz

Well, I guess I'll fess up to NOT being a wide-angle fan. One reason is because everybody does it, and I guess I'm looking for something "different". And I especially enjoy shooting macro and what I call micro-marco (105mm with a +4 CU lens screwed in).

When I was shooting with my N90, my favorite lenses were:
28-105mm (shots down to 1:2 in macro at 105)
105mm
18-35mm (which I'm actually not too crazy about)

With my D70 (Ikelite housing, dual SB-105 strobes), it's a little trickier:
18-70mm DX (seems to be an okay choice)
28-105mm (still like it but it's effectively a 42 on the "wide" end)
105mm (but boy is it hard to shoot in surge with that thing!!!!)
105mm with a +4 diopter on it (liked my results on Baja Barnacle Blennies)

Why can't someone just come up with a nice 8-200mm macro zoom that shoots 2:1 at the top end and that costs under $500? Is that asking too much?????

You can see some of the stuff I've shot with these combos (Indo 2005, Kona 2005, and Baja 2005 are digital; SoCal General is a mix; others are film) at Reef Seekers Picture Page.

Ken Kurtis!!?!?!?!??!

Good to see you on here!

Gotten lost lately?

Ooo, those Canucks are looking good lately, nevermind the Kings game, they beat the Ducks....

Mike asked: "Gotten lost lately?"

Now Mike, let's remember that there's a difference bewteen me being lost and you not being able to find me even though I could clearly see you. And we won't even go into how you were within 50 yards of me, looked right at and through me, and then turned around and went the other way.

Besides, I had my trusty SB-105s with me. Once it got dark, all I had to do was turn them into flash/strobe mode so that you guys could have easily spotted me and most likely have gone, "Hey, look over there. That must be Ken. Why doesn't someone go get him . . . once we're all done with dessert of course."

Re-read my Nov 17 post and found out that I was either:

a) drunk;

trying to write as bad with a keyboard as I do when handwriting;

c) in a hurry to finish my post to drink another beer;

d) all of the above!

Millions of apologies for my poor rendition of the proper spelling of nice English words. I guess I have too many thumbs :-)

Happy bubbles,

Michel

PS: Jett, Dan is fine and we're looking forward to reading more from you in the forums; gotta share that expertise.

I really like to start off a dive trip with the 60mm. In the Subal housing it doesn't feel so much to handle as a wide-angle port. Once I am comfortable with the dive environment I will bring in my trusty Nikkor 12-24 - which I really like; and then the 10.5 - especially on wall dives.

Again, once I'm happy with the environment I might also try an 18-70. But, I'm not sure why yet, I never feel quite as happy with it as the other lenses - although the results are usually pretty pleasing.

I can feel a 105mm coming on.......