Hi Folks,

I've just posted a new "Wiseman Feature" article at:

http://www.wetpixel.com/module-pagesetter-...-1-pid-46.phtml

Selecting Lenses for Your New Digital SLR



All comments and feedback appreciated.

Enjoy!
James

Thank you James!
I'm eventually getting the D70 (April) and was wondering what would be a good option to replace my 20mm Nikkor with for that 100 degrees. One question though, do you know how the Sigma 15mm compare to the 20mm Nikkor in quality?

/Stefan

Good article, as someone that going to buy the D70 (probably) in the near future and his next task is to put it under water (still need the approval of the authorized authority :? ) I fount it very helpful.

Well done James............how about camera menu settings for the next lesson?

Karl

Good article James, but I strongly disagree with your recommendation of the Sigma/Nikor fisheyes. For anyone shooting Nikon mounts, the DX fisheye should be their choice. I realize that the Sigma fisheye might be a little less costly, but the angle of coverage is not even close to 180 degrees on DX sensor-based cameras. I can no longer accept fisheye distortion on a lens that yields less coverage than my 12-24. IMO new users should milk their kit lenses until they can afford a 12-24 (sigma or nikon) or true DX fisheye.

Thank you James, I will have the D70 kit soon and housing to replace my Nikonos kit. I had made up my mind to buy the 10.5 DX fisheye and the 60 mm micro. I dont now what housing to get. Should i wait with buying lenses until i know what housing i will have ? I saw Nexus are soon selling housing with a special domeport for the 10.5 DX and a port for the 15 mm Sigma. It`s easy to get confused and your article kind of confused me a littlebit more, in a good way. I will use the kit in poor visibility water most of the time.

Hi Gang,

Thanks for the feedback on the article, I appreciate everyone's perspective.

First off, let me make some clarifications:

I show the Nikkor 16mm fisheye in the pic. This is NOT the lens that I am recommending for beginners to buy. I recommend the Sigma 15mm fisheye as it's about $300 less.

I am not recommending the 18-35ED lens either - even though I have some sample photos taken with that lens. I recommend the 18-70 since it's less $$ and has a longer focal length range.

Lastly, for Kasey - I did not recommend the 10.5mm fisheye because a fullframe fisheye is not really a "beginner" lens. It is a "niche" lens which happens to fill an underwater photographer's bag nicely. Think about the challenges of shooting a true fullframe fisheye Kasey - and think like a beginner. Think about shots of itty-bitty fish, fins in the photos, and very poorly lit shots. Aiming and using strobes to light such a broad canvas is not easy... Plus, the 10.5DX is $300 more expensive than the Sigma 15mm.

Lastly, the 12-24DX is an awesome lens, and should be a part of every underwater photographer's arsenal eventually. But I can not in good conscience recommend a lens to beginners that costs >$1,000. That's more than the camera costs!

Other thoughts are appreciated, so keep 'em coming. If you're still confused nordic, post here again - I don't really understand what you're confused about.

Cheers
James

Thanks James,

Great article with a very level-headed perspective. Your input is always a big help.

I purchased the Nikkor 60 mm macro for my D70 at your suggestion a while before it arrived. Is it possible to use this with a dome port as well? You reccomend a flat port in your article. I will be getting the Ikelite dome that matches the kit lens. Is it possible to use just one port for both of these? I'd like to save cost/space if possible. What is the disadvantage of using a macro lens behind a dome? Do I need a closeup diopter?

Thanks for your advice.

Is the the nikkor 60mm micro substantially better than the 50mm 1.8 for underwater purposes?

James, I have a 10.5mm fisheye and I agree with you that it is not a beginners lens. Fisheyes require a technique of their own, and that is something to learn later.
Alex

I agree, but still think the 16/15mm is a lens that will leave beginners wanting more. Especially once you've looked through it behind a full frame camera.

Perhaps the 18-70 would carry a beginner for quite a while, until ready for the 12-24 or 10.5.

In my view, the most expensive part of this hobby is upgrading to what you really wanted in the 1st place. I've done it many times - E20 to D100, 16.5mm to 10.5mm, Aquatica to Seacam (this one is still in progress). This is a tremendous expense and I'd recommend newbies hold off until they can afford what they really want.

Kasey

I certainly agree with you here, Kasey. One advantage to the 16mm is that it might end up being useful in the future if full frame sensors become more common. And the 10.5mm becomes redundant!

Being more realistic, I rather like the 16mm on my D100. This am I was working on a picture list for my next trip and I found that quite a few shots required the 16mm rather than the 10.5mm on the D100.

Alex

Nitro: the 50mm f1.8 is a topside portrait lens for studio use. It is not a macro lens like the 60mm and will not render a high reproduction ratio.

Cheers
James

You can use the 60 mm with a dome port. I know several pros who insist this is the only way to go. You don't get the extra magnification that a flat port will give you; but your colors with be more accurate and I believe your image will be sharper (noticeable I think only in a 16 x 20 blow up).

I would have to say that the 60 is the one must have lens if you use a nikon mount camera UW.

If you can swing it. I would definitely recommend spending your pennies on a 12 - 24 vs a fish eye and the kit lens. Due to the wide angle of the the 12 to 24 it's effectiveness as an on land walk around lens is limited.

If you did get the 12-24 though you could get rich off all the great shots you will get and then could afford the 2.8 17-55 as your walk around lens. This looks to be a killer lens for land use.

{quote}
If you did get the 12-24 though you could get rich off all the great shots you will get and then could afford the 2.8 17-55 as your walk around lens. This looks to be a killer lens for land use.[/quote]

the 17-55 might be great for fish and sharks as well

True, but the 17 - 35 will be better as it focuses closer. The 12 - 24 will be better yet. If you go beyond the 24 mm focal length because your subject is too far away and your image will be compromised by the filtering effect of that extra water filter on color and sharpness.

When I was in Guadalupe shooting the sharks I shot as many pictures as possible at the 12 mm focal length. Others were at the 24 mm focal length as the sharks wouldn't come any closer. Most of those shots were inferior due to lack of sharpness due to the amount of water the light had to travel through. And the lack of color was noticeable even though the subjects were mostly grey. I found as I have found many times before that a few pictures taken at your widest focal length are better than many taken at longer focal lengths. The only good use I've ever found for focal lengths longer than 35 mm were for small subjects that you can get within 5 feet of and still use that longer focal length. The use of macro lenses being the logical end result of this method.

There is also a new Sigma 12-24 , someone I really trust on his opinion said to me that its a new version and its much better then the first version and he was very satisfied with it.

well...... I got a 16mm fish eye ( Nikon ) and generally, it takes nice shots ( and I am new to wide / fish eyes ) . As most UW environs dont have straight lines, its hard to notice the curvature.

60 mm with a dome as suggested above , not sure I would buy into that. The strength of the 60 is its macro capability + can do some wider shots thant the 105. Doing macro shots with a dome would be interesting ( and costly ) indeed. (scratch).

personal favourites are 105, 105+2xTC and the 16mm for wide.

Has anyone tried the 17-55 yet? With a 14.2 inch minimum focus I assume it requires a diopter for most domes. Just looking at the specs it seems kind of marginal for UW, but would love to hear some real world experience with it.

Interesting.

What would be a compelling reason to buy the 17-55DX as opposed to the 17-35 AFS? Are the extra 20mm at the <edit>long end worth buying a DX lens that won't work on a full-frame camera?

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

isn't the extra 20mm at the narrow end (zoom) as opposed to the wide end?

also why do people keep talking about full frame?

kodak is the only one, is has not had the best of reviews, and what about a housing?

we are a long way off from full frame cameras at a reasonable street price, so it isn't really an issue, other than they are good lenses especially the one that comes with the D70.

Canon 1Ds is full frame, albeit not cheap!

People keep talking about it because they tend to keep lenses far longer than they do camera bodies. I for one don't want to shell out over $1000 for a lens that I think isn't going to work with a camera body I might buy in a year or two.

Right now, you can only shrink the pixels to a certain size, and after that, the photos start looking bad.

With a DX sized sensor (24mm wide) you can do about 8-10 megapixels, and then the noise starts to get bad. If that same sensor is full frame (36mm wide) then you can get 1.5x as many pixels on there and still have a good quality photo.

So if asked: "Would you like to have a 12 megapixel sensor that is full frame, or DX sized?" I'd take the full frame sensor every time.

From my point of view, there is not ONE single compelling reason from a photography point-of-view why a DX sized sensor is better.

The only compelling reason to get a DX sized sensor camera is the price.

Cheers
James

Remember that "bad" means that it looks bad at 100%, on the screen. Printed out, it may very well look just fine because of the higher resolution.

Maybe, but I'll bet a click on "Actual Pixels" happens about as often (with an art buyer) as looking through a Schneider 4x loupe in the film days. If it doesn't look good at 100%, it will be commercially impaired.

Good point, Steve.

But let's say that you have a 12MP image with more noise, and a 6MP image with less noise. If you downsize the 12MP image to 6MP, I'll be it would compete favorably. In film terms, with a 4x loupe, you're getting the same "size" image with each inspection of a file. So the comparison *should* really be to view a 12MP image at the same physical size as the 6MP image.

Once buyers start to realize that noisy(er) but very high resolution images can print just fine, they may start to accept them more. If that's doesn't happen, then we as photographers can always run noise filters (which work very well these days), downsample, and then interpolate up.

I guess what I'm saying is that the "100%" view can be manipulated.

The size of the pixels will also limit the acceptable aperture that you can shoot. For a 6 megapixel DX sensor, the calcs show that above f27 (aperture setting on the 105 for example) diffracted light will hit a number of pixels.

That's one of the reasons that consumer cameras only go up to f10 (the other is their short focal lengths).

Man - I'm breaking down into techno-speak again! I guess my take-home message is that bigger pixels are almost always better.

Cheers
James

James,

you should become a politician!

you managed to reply to my post, not answering the question but guffing it.

1. You seemed to forgot to answer the bit on which end the extra 20mm was.
2. You said you would choose full frame over DX anytime, i never said that was the case, i said they were out of the reach of normal amature/enthusiast photographer because of the high costs involved.
3 You said you could see no reason to buy the DX lens over the 17 - 35, how about three times cheaper and larger focal length, you have to remember not everyone has a bottomless wallet!

so are you going to throw away a lens (a good one at that) that came with your camera because it is a DX?

or purchase a cheaper good quality DX lens to get you started and then if you get on, later purchase a full frame lens thats if you happen to have bought a full frame digital camera! otherwise it doesn't really matter.

Smaller sensors are advantageous if you need a wider depth of field (for applications where you need it) and for the possibility of smaller cameras.

That's two reasons, not including price (which you did mention). :)

Ahem - I believe depth of field is completely a property of the lens - not the size of the sensor, right? :-) But of course, if you have a small sensor, you'll need a lens with a correspondingly short focal length...so you end up getting more DOF.

I agree that smaller cameras are nice. I wish my S2 was the size of the Coolpix 5000.

Cheers
James

When the circle of confusion is adjusted and the effects of diffractions are made proportionate, the apparent depth of field advantages evaporate, though. It's really only true that smaller sensors offer superior DOF when you have limited light (since less light is required to expose the image at equivalent ISO).

DX sensors can have superior resolving power if the lens has superior resolution in the limited area involved and the sensor can take advantage of it. DX sensors have a big cost advantage and can perform very well.

On the other hand, beyond a certain point the only way to increase resolution is to increase the sensor size. That's why people are interested in full frame.

Yeah, I know how it works. I'm talking about practical, real-world effects here.

Craig wrote: "It's really only true that smaller sensors offer superior DOF when you have limited light."

But there *is* limited light, right? I'm talking about two shots, given the same conditions.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the DX sensor size can't just be dismissed in a blanket statement like the one James has thrown out there.

Hi Eric,

I'm certainly not dismissing it - I have two DX sized sensor cameras and I like them both. I have the wideangle end covered by the Nikkor 12-24DX lens and a 16mm fisheye. The D-Rebel and the D70 with their specially designed kit lenses are a nice "affordable" little package.

However, I think if cost is not a factor, most people would prefer a full-frame camera over a DX sized sensor camera.

I think the strongest argument for the smaller sensor cameras is that the camera body and lenses can be smaller. It would be nice if the cameras were smaller due to the DX sensor size, but they are not - at least not today. Instead, the camera companies simply put a 1.5x crop imager in the same space that they used to put a 24x36mm piece of film.

A "mini slr" would be cool though - imagine a camera and lens that are 2/3 the size of today's cameras. But with a "big-honkin" viewfinder of course.

Cheers
James

Where in my response did I say anything about throwing away a lens? And where did I suggest it wasn't a good lens? I simply answered your question "why do people keep talking about full frame?" from my point of view. I've personally learned that I'm better off buying what I really want the first time, even if I have to wait significantly longer to get it because of cost, instead of buying multiple times and spending a lot more in the long run. As I buy glass, I'm buying lenses that I know I will keep for a long time, i.e. my Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 IS L, etc. Would I buy a DX lens (if there were a Canon equivalent that worked with my D60)? Maybe, but most likely only an ultrawide zoom or fisheye.

If budget is the primary concern, or convenience for that matter, the kit lenses are a great start and will most likely meet many people's needs.

I happen to strongly agree with James, if money wasn't the object, I'd prefer FF over a DX sized chip. And long term, I will probably own a FF camera, so I am planning accordingly.

As always, just my opinion...

Yes, there are situations with limited light. In a common example, say you're shooting in a WA situation that calls for f/8. Using a 5050, you'd be getting maximum DOF since f/8 is the smallest aperture you can use. A FF SLR won't be anywhere near the DOF of the 5050 with regards to the background of that image. It's just that this is generally not the case wtih macro where you bring enough strobe power to shoot at the maximum aperture you can live with. In that situation FF sensors are not at a DOF disadvantage unless your ISO is so slow you can't get enough strobe on the subject.

I don't feel that DX sensors are bad. I just feel that FF sensors have an undeniable resolution advantage. Some say that DX sensors are superior because they use the best part of the lens, but if you look at the highest resolution systems, they're all MF backs plus the 1Ds and the Kodak. The 1D2 counts among them as well. There's a clear correlation between sensor size and overall resolving power.

Should I be planning my lenses for full frame?

I too agree that buying something like glass should be a long term investment. I also agree that Full frame is the future.

So look into your crystal balls. When I come to replace my D70 in 5+ years, will full frame CCDs (or CMOS) be a reality in the "budget dSLR" category?

I guess the question is: what would be the impeutus for me to upgrade my dSLR? I guess that would have to be something big like 23 mp (film equivelent resolution) which would probably require Full-frame or high MP Foveon chip. I probably wouldn't want to upgrade even if the MP on my D70 were doubled. Right now, 6 MP can go up to 8x8" at 300 dpi. With the enhanced noise capabilities of an SLR I can probably push this to 8.5x11 or even 11x14 with interpolation and if no one is looking at it with a loupe. But if I want to go to 16x20, I'll probably need a ~20 mp camera. That is probably the point where I will need an upgrade and it sounds like at that point I will need a full frame sensor to accomplish this. Maybe this won't really happen in the next 5 years, but I can't think of anything else compelling that would make me upgrade.

So I guess I should be planning for full frame. Maybe I should give the Sigma 12-24 another look. The main advantage (besides $400 price) of this over the nikon is full frame capability.

The current crop of 6MP DSLRs are already better than film. I've taken both underwater and topside images with my 10D and even up to 20x30, they will rival the quality of equivalent film prints. Film may hold a touch more detail, however, there is the noticeable amount of film grain...to clean up a film scan in order to make it look as grain free as a DSLR image will degrade it so much that there is less info on the film scan. Of course, I'm talking up doing some "res-sing" up of the digital file.

Here's an interesting review by Michael Riechmann...of the D60 v.s. Medium format.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d60/d60.shtml


I'm planning for full frame and will hold onto my 16-35L & soon to arrive 15mm Fisheye. The only reason I'd upgrade my 10D would be for a higher frame rate, buffer depth camera....for the same price as the current 10D! =)

My 2 cents

Stu

This is good news. I'm already reeling from the sticker shock of accessories--not to mention how the wife feels.

I question the usefulness of a 12-24 zoom on a full frame SLR.

I don't think people should make buying decisions based on what they may have 5 years from now. There are very few DX lenses. The 12-24 is clearly useful while the fisheye is a specialty lens. Only the newest DX lenses have full frame equivalents that you could consider.