U/W photography in Sipadan & Layang Layang

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

VK - 06 Apr 2007 07:42 GMT

I'm heading to Borneo in late May - plan is to spend 4-5 days diving
in Layang Layang, and 4 days in Sipadan. The goal is u/w
photography. At LL & Sipadan, I want the "big stuff" - sharks, mantas
& more. I'll also do a day of macro at Mabul.

I wanted to hear from people who've been there - any tips/suggestions
on good sites, recommended lenses, etc? I have 4 lenses that I use
for u/w work: 100 macro, 10-20, 17-70 and 10-17fisheye.

As I plan to do some wildlife work, I'll also be traveling with a
500/4 and a 300/4, so I'd like to reduce my load as much as possible.
So if any of my 4 u/w lenses will not be too useful, I'd be keen to
know.

Thanks,
Vandit

Reply to this Message

Van Weng Koon - 06 Apr 2007 13:06 GMT

> I'm heading to Borneo in late May - plan is to spend 4-5 days diving
> in Layang Layang, and 4 days in Sipadan. The goal is u/w
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Thanks,
> Vandit

IMHO I'd ditch the 17-70 and the 10-17 fisheye.

Van

Reply to this Message

Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2007 15:08 GMT

If I were planning on shooting big stuff, the last thing I'd do is ditch my
wide and ultra wide angle lenses.

Lee

Signature

________________________________
It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of
vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion.
WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954

>
>> I'm heading to Borneo in late May - plan is to spend 4-5 days diving
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Van

Reply to this Message

Art Greenberg - 06 Apr 2007 16:16 GMT

> If I were planning on shooting big stuff, the last thing I'd do is
> ditch my wide and ultra wide angle lenses.

Right. But Vandit said he has a 10-20 that would cover that. The 17-70
would be of some use for reef shots and CFWA (I like a 20 and 24 for
that, behind the dome the effective focal length is a bit shorter). But
above about 28mm, its not so useful.

I don't know about the 10-17 fisheye. I've never used a fisheye. So let
me use this as a learning opportunity. In practical terms, what's the
difference between a lens of a given focal length that isn't designated
fisheye, and one that is? Don't they have the same angle of coverage?

Signature

Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Reply to this Message

ben bradlee - 06 Apr 2007 17:38 GMT

> I don't know about the 10-17 fisheye. I've never used a fisheye. So let
> me use this as a learning opportunity. In practical terms, what's the
> difference between a lens of a given focal length that isn't designated
> fisheye, and one that is? Don't they have the same angle of coverage?

Of or being a wide-angle photographic lens that covers an angle of about
180°, producing a circular image with exaggerated foreshortening in the
center and increasing distortion toward the periphery. The key here is the
180 degree, circular, image. You'll know when you see a picture taken with
a fisheye lens. Most pictures taken with a fisheye lens wind up on the edit
room floor. You'll have distortion using a wide angle lens but it's nothing
compared to a fisheye lens. The wide angle lens generally is specified in
polar terms. You'll experience the field of view along one axis.

Reply to this Message

VK - 06 Apr 2007 19:32 GMT

> Right. But Vandit said he has a 10-20 that would cover that. The 17-70
> would be of some use for reef shots and CFWA (I like a 20 and 24 for
> that, behind the dome the effective focal length is a bit shorter). But
> above about 28mm, its not so useful.

Yeah, I was thinking of ditching the 17-70 myself. I can get CFWA
with the 10-20 as well, and probably to better effect, as well. I've
yet to take too many decent shots with th 17-70. It falls "in
between", as far as lenses go. Also, its image quality isnt on par
with my other topside lenses, so I cannot even use it for topsides
duty.

No, the fisheye has a much larger angle of coverage - at 10mm, the
10-17FE has 180 degree diagonal coverage.

I have to admit, this is a new lens and I havent quite mastered it
yet. Also, unless the big stuff comes really close, I am not sure if
the FE will be that useful either. The curvy distortion is less of
an issue underwater, but the 10-17 is just too specialized. As I only
have 4-5 days in each destination, I want to maximize the photo ops,
and I think with a fisheye, I might be setting myself up to miss some
photo ops that come in my way.

Vandit

Vandit

Reply to this Message