I'm changing over from a film based all manual setup to digital this Spring. (we've been bringing up a family - hence the delay!)

Manual = (Nikon F3 + 55mm micro & 20mm wideangle, DA2 Action Finder, Aquatica housing and Ikelite S150 & A100 strobes)

On the wideangle set-up I'm happy that I carry over a manual setup for focus and flash. Pennies reserved for the Nikon 10.5 mm.

On the macro side I'm looking for feedback. Will the 105mm lens do most of the macros shots or do I need the 60mm as well?

On macro I can see from posts where TTL (SB80X / SB800DX) might be an advantage, but what about auto / manual focus?

Hope this does not trigger a "thou shall not" type debate, but I would love to hear the real pro / con views on macro.

thanks in anticipation
Robert

I have both and almost always prefer the 60 mm. Both do the same 1:1 macro but you can get much larger subjects with the 60 mm. The crop factor of today's dSLRs even increases the advantage of the 60 for the type of shooting I do. If you are shooting small skittish subjects in clear water without a lot of surge the 105 is superior. If you shoot only very small macro subjects the greater working distance of the 105 can also be an advantage. The bottom line is that the superior lens depends upon what type of shooting you are doing with it. For me the 60 mm lens gives me 1:1 macro that is more usable in surge or poor visibility and lets me get shots you would use the Nikonos closeup lens for in the past as well.

[Testing new board]

Myself, I've always used the 105 mm with my film SLR. When I moved to digital, I decided to spend the extra $$ on upgrading the dome port to use with the 12-24 DX wide-angle zoom rather than buying a new 60 mm lens (or the big macro zoom) and a new port to fit it. (Both housings are Subal, so I can still use the manual focus 105 mm port I already have.)

Shooting the 105 mm with the smaller framed Fuji S2 is definitely different than on a full-frame film SLR. Unsurprisingly, with the narrower frame size, the lens works better for smaller subjects, but its harder to shoot larger subjects. Backing off to get the same subject I used to be able to shoot into the frame requires repositioning strobes from the "default" positions I used to use, and/or wider apertures, which reduces depth of field.

There certainly have been a few times when I've thought it might be nice to have a 60 mm lens instead, but the 105 mm is also better in other situations. It's really a matter of learning a new range of subject sizes and distances where this lens performs optimally. if somebody offered to trade a 60 mm lens and port for my current 105 mm set-up, I wouldn't take it.

Provided the water is reasonably clear and you have powerful enough strobes, you can still use the 105 mm for "fish portraits" at a distance of up to one meter or perhaps a bit more.

Manual focus is a bit of a problem with any lens on the Fuji S2 (at least for me, using Subal housing) because the viewfinder image is quite small. I mainly use autofocus, but manual focus works fine, e.g., when I need to lock on to a subject in the middle of other objects, or in shallow water and bright conditions where moving light patterns from the surface can confuse the autofocus system.

Bottom line: you definitely can still take macro shots with the 105 mm. on a digital that you will be very happy with.



"Skeleton shrimp" (Caprella sp.), Fuji S2, 105 mm lens.

Hello Robert,

For me, macro and digital have been a challenge. There are certainly benefits in using the digital camera for macro (immediate feedback, more shots, etc.), but the combination of the reduced viewing area, NO increase in magnifcation & the S2's tiny viewfinder (compared to the F4's Action Finder) outweighs the benefits at times. I still use film for super macro and digital with a 60 mm lens for fish portraits & some macro.

By the way, I do not see any advantage to the reduced viewing area/sensor cropping. If it increased the magnification of the lens then it would be a reasonable compromise. Yes, you are forced to use the center portion of the lens, but it increases your distance to the subject, meaning you have to shoot through more water to fill the frame. Most of all, it reduces your flexibility in using the lens as you would with a film camera.

As for auto vs manual focus, it depends on the subject and camera. Manual is must for me when it comes to super macro. A 105 mm lens and 2X converter are a headache waiting to happen in auto. For fish portraits and other macro, auto often works fine.

Before you settle on the 10.5 mm lens for wide angle, I recommend that you also try the 12 - 24 DX zoom. Prior to its introduction, I had only used fixed lenses for my wide angle work. That changed with the advent of the 12 - 24mm DX (for digital shooting at least).

Scott

Thank you for all the great input.

The 10.5mm is on my list as I want to do some available light work on wrecks and other big scenics - we have a lot of tunnels and swim throughs locally which are crying out for fisheye style images.

Most of my previous u/w work with the 55mm micro was in Scottish waters, and the subject matter was larger invertebrates with lower visibility. I also have the 105mm Micro for land use, but never contemplated putting it into the housing due to subject distance and backscatter.

Now that I'm living in the Mediterranean, there are also more opportunities for fish shots, hence the query about which lens. If my math is right, the the 60mm AF Micro will have the equivalent field of view as a 96mm on a D100 which gets me into the realms of a 105mm anyway. Sounds like it is going to be the 60mm first of all underwater, and a play with the old 105mm on manual. Just need the extension ring for the macro port.

Robert

I think the choice between the lens very much depends on your location and in the end many UW photographers tend to end up owning both (unlike many land photographers who find that they can get away with just one - because they can all ways back away from the subject).

I have found my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 a great replacement on digital for what a 55/60mm macro lens used to do for me on 35mm.

Alex (1st post on the new site!)

I am back on Guam and just yesterday I put the S2 to work in hyper macro mode. Since this type of macro requires a 105 or greater focal length lens I decided to post it here.

Here is some basic info !

Fuji S2 in a Aquatica housing

I used a 105 mm plus a Kenko 3X ( 300 Pro) teleconverter. The Aquatica extension ring designed for the 200 mm micro is perfect for this lens/converter combination.

Due to the substantial light loss using the 3x, I set the camera to 200 asa and bracketed between f11 and f16. Using dual SB-105 strobes in TTL mode most shots were about 1 stop underexposed regardless of the f stop used, in the future when I have a couple of hours to do the dive I will add some flash compensation to the bracketing routine.

As usual everything on the camera and lens is set to manual. This will result in a lot of out of focus shots BUT the camera fires when I want it to. My time was limited on this first dive therefore I tended to rush the shots which reduced the "keeper" rate considerably compared to past attempts using a film set up.

I have a Ike PCA mounted on top of the housing using a dovetail ball adapter and a Ultralite universal light saddle joined by a single clamp. The narrow beam makes it much easier to aim the camera before looking through the finder. The resulting image in the finder was reasonably bright and allowed me to determine focus. The S2 viewfinder did make it a bit more challenging but it was manageable.

DOF is nil, therefore timing plays a major role in getting sharp images. Focus is achieved by moving the entire rig and then trying fire the shutter as the subject comes into focus. If you wait to see a sharp image in the finder BEFORE pressing the shutter the shot will most likely be out of focus due to the human delay factor. A tripod would be great but quite impractical due to the location of the subjects.

Anyway, I have attached one image. These are Dusky Anemone eggs. The uncropped image required a +1.0 exposure adjustment in the raw converter and has has a bit of PS sharpening via the unsharp mask control, otherwise no other adjustments have been made.

KIndest Regards

Chris