AF Zoom Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:34 amFolks,
I'm thinking of getting the subject lens for use underwater. I have done a search and I see that a few people have this lens. I see that Laurie regrets getting it as his first lens, although I'm not sure whether that is a comment on the quality or simply another lens would have been more suitable as an only lens.
So... for those that have the lens, I'm interested in what you think of it and if you also have the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G how the two lenses compare.
I currently use the 18-70mm and a Nikkor AF Micro 60mm f/2.8D for underwater work. The 18-70mm is a great "swim around" lens but lacks any real macro capability so if I see something interesting that is small, I can't get a good shot. The 60mm is superb for macro but can be limiting for large subjects, particularly if the visibility is not good. The 28-105mm seems to be a good compromise between the two lenses I currently have.
For those that aren't familiar with underwater photography, you have to minimise the camera to subject distance for two main reasons.
1) The more water the light has to pass through, the more light you will lose, and you don't lose it evenly with reds being filtered out pretty quickly. If the water is murky, this situation is even worse. For large subjects, wide angle is a must so you can get the whole subject in while staying pretty close.
2) Unless you are in very shallow water, you need to use one or more strobes to provide enough light and also to maintain something close to "natural" colour rendition. Strobes have limited distance, especially underwater.
Of course, the above suggests to go with a straight wide angle lens. The problem with this is small subjects such as nudibranchs make a very small image in a wide angle lens. Even with macro capability, it can be difficult to get the lens close enough and still light it well.
A zoom lens with macro works the best.
I'm thinking of getting the subject lens for use underwater. I have done a search and I see that a few people have this lens. I see that Laurie regrets getting it as his first lens, although I'm not sure whether that is a comment on the quality or simply another lens would have been more suitable as an only lens.
So... for those that have the lens, I'm interested in what you think of it and if you also have the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G how the two lenses compare.
I currently use the 18-70mm and a Nikkor AF Micro 60mm f/2.8D for underwater work. The 18-70mm is a great "swim around" lens but lacks any real macro capability so if I see something interesting that is small, I can't get a good shot. The 60mm is superb for macro but can be limiting for large subjects, particularly if the visibility is not good. The 28-105mm seems to be a good compromise between the two lenses I currently have.
For those that aren't familiar with underwater photography, you have to minimise the camera to subject distance for two main reasons.
1) The more water the light has to pass through, the more light you will lose, and you don't lose it evenly with reds being filtered out pretty quickly. If the water is murky, this situation is even worse. For large subjects, wide angle is a must so you can get the whole subject in while staying pretty close.
2) Unless you are in very shallow water, you need to use one or more strobes to provide enough light and also to maintain something close to "natural" colour rendition. Strobes have limited distance, especially underwater.
Of course, the above suggests to go with a straight wide angle lens. The problem with this is small subjects such as nudibranchs make a very small image in a wide angle lens. Even with macro capability, it can be difficult to get the lens close enough and still light it well.
A zoom lens with macro works the best.
.
