AF Zoom Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

Had a play with something interesting? Got something that we all covet? Found a real lemon? Write a few lines about it, and share your experiences.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

AF Zoom Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

Postby ATJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:34 am

Folks,

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.
User avatar
ATJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW

Postby Glen on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:43 am

No experience personally but Bjorn Rorslett gives it a 4 out of 5 and seems impressed.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby shutterbug on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:47 am

It is a great sharp lens.

I sold it last year to a fellow member :wink:
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby ATJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:52 am

Glen,

Yeah, I saw that. And even Ken Rockwell is not too scathing, which can't be bad. ;)

One thing that did worry me about the Rockwell review was the Macro switch and how I would access it under water. Ikelite come to the rescue there:

Ikelite Dome Port
User avatar
ATJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW

Postby Thommo on Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:31 pm

shutterbug wrote:It is a great sharp lens.

I sold it last year to a fellow member :wink:


that would be me :P.

and for the record i am looking to sell it off again as it doesnt get used(28-70 lives on whatever camera i am using, be it film or digi)
User avatar
Thommo
Member
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:31 am
Location: Canberra, Bonython

Postby ATJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:11 pm

Thommo wrote:and for the record i am looking to sell it off again...

You might have a buyer, here. :D
User avatar
ATJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW


Return to Equipment Reviews