Recommended lens for shooting caverns?

[jwbryson1]

I'm taking my girls to see the caverns in Virginia tomorrow and wanted some suggestions on which lens(es) to take with me. They suggest shooting with a flash but I suspect the caverns should be fairly well lit.

I shoot with a Nikon D90 and my choice of lenses are (i) 35mm f/1.8, (ii) 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and (iii) 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6.

Any other thoughts on getting good shots of caverns?

Thanks.

 

[analog.universe]

I'd probably go for the 18-55 and shoot toward the wide end. Certainly bring a tripod (or a beanbag?) if you don't intend on using flash. I've been in caverns that were pretty nicely lit, and while there's enough light to shoot, it's not quite enough to hand hold. That 35 is pretty small right? Maybe keep it in your pocket to snap off some handheld shots at 1.8?

Ideally, if I could really choose any lens, I'd want wider than 18. Sigma 8-16mm or some such...

 

[jwbryson1]

The 35mm is a terrific lens and is really lightweight and small so I like that idea. The 18-200 is big and heavy and not something I want to carry around with me.

The 18-55 was my first choice because it's lightweight and is fairly wide. I had not considered taking my tripod but that's also a good idea.

Thanks.

 

[tirediron]

Even if the caverns appear well lit to the eye, they're probably not going to be to your camera. Definitely bring your wider glass, flash and tripod. I would avoid the flash if you can for two reasons (1) If these are large enough caverns, it may not do much and (2) there tend to be a lot of reflective mineral formations what while not readily visible to the naked eye produce really annoying reflection and flare in photos.

 

[Amocholes]

I am a caver and have done quite a bit of cave photography although I don't carry my dslr caving. I have a cheap P&S that does pretty well. The lighting will tend to be really yellow and not as bright as you think. Most show caves will not permit you to carry a tripod but you might get away with a monopod. Most things that you'll be seeing will be within range of a flash. There will be a lot of wet surfaces so you will get reflections from the flash. There will also be a lot of water vapor and you will find that some of your pictures are nothing but something dimly seen through the fog. Stop breathing for a few moments before pressing the shutter. It does help since a lot of the fog you see will be from your own breath. Here are a couple of samples taken with a Fujifilm F20. Not my best but all I have on flickr at the moment. (These were in a "wild" cave and completely unlit)

 

[KmH]

The 35mm is a terrific lens and is really lightweight and small so I like that idea. The 18-200 is big and heavy and not something I want to carry around with me.

The 18-55 was my first choice because it's lightweight and is fairly wide. I had not considered taking my tripod but that's also a good idea.

Thanks.

The 35 mm is an OK lens that has issues with CA, and won't be wide enough on the D90. The D90 has a 1.5x crop sensor the full frame equivelent FOV of the 35 mm is 52.5 mm. The 18-200 is not very big, nor is it very heavy, but used at it's extremes like wide open aperture, minimum/maximum zoom, it is a less than quality lens, and considered by many to be Nikon's current worst lens value.

I would recommend you take both the 18-55 and the 35 mm.

Since you already have 18-55 mm covered, sell the 18-200 at the earliest opportunity, and replace it with the much better, and considered by many to be Nikon's current best lens value, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras and get 100 mm more reach to boot.

 

[jwbryson1]

Thanks KmH. I really love the 18-200mm and think the quality of photos I get with it are pretty good. "Big and heavy" is relative to the 35mm prime I also have.

I like the idea of selling it and getting the 70-300mm which is a fairly inexpensive lens. Why is that lens $300 cheaper than the 18-200mm I currently own? Build quality?

 

[jwbryson1]

Unfortunately, we are not going to hit the caverns tomorrow. With the recent earthquake and ongoing aftershocks in Virginia, I've had second thoughts about taking my family into an underground cavern 75 miles from the epicenter. Maybe another day.

Instead, we're going to head to Amish country, PA.

 

[KmH]

Why is that lens $300 cheaper than the 18-200mm I currently own? Build quality?

No. The build quality is actually better, as are the optics. The 70-300 VR is also an FX lens, while the 18-200 is a DX only lens.

The 18-200 is so much more expensive because of all the tricky, image quality compromising design compromises they have to accommodate to attain the 11x+ zoom range. The convenience of the 18-200 zoom range comes at a cost; price and diminished image quality when the lens is used at it's extremes.

Keep the 18-200 between 35 mm and 180 mm, and it's an OK lens. Keep the 18-200 in the middle lens apertures, and it's an OK lens. Keep the 18-200 away from it's near focus limits, and it's an OK lens.

Unfortunately you paid for a lens that is an 18-200, not a 35-180.

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

At its shortest setting, the lens shows very pronounced barrel distortion.......At 100mm, the border and corner sharpness drops considerably, showing quite soft results wide open. The lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 here to achieve very good sharpness across the frame.......The lens showed quite pronounced field curvature and high residual spherical aberrations (focus shift when stopping down) at the wide end of the zoom range. ......CAs (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are quite high, reaching values beyond 2 pixels at 200mm wide open and generally well above 1 pixel, except for the 100mm setting......

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II lens review: verdict, Nikkor 18-200mm II vs 55-200mm VR vs 70-300mm VR | Cameralabs

But the DX 18-200mm VR II isn't without its downsides. Most obviously as mentioned above, you'll still achieve superior quality results if you cover the same range with two or more lenses. As always this is a personal decision with some photographers willing to trade convenience for quality, while others place convenience as their top priority........It's also important to mention zoom-shrinkage, where a lens delivers a shorter total range when focused at a close distance than it does at infinity - see our Features page for an explanation and examples. To be fair, this problem affects all camera lenses which employ internal focusing, especially zooms and particularly those with long ranges like this one. As such the DX 18-200mm VR II acts more like a DX 18-135mm at its closest focusing distance, rendering an 11.1x zoom into one with a range closer to 6 or 7x........complementing your existing model with either the DX 55-200mm VR or AF-S 70-300mm VR will give you better results at a much lower price.... If you're happy to carry two or more lenses and swap them as required, then we'd recommend complementing an existing general-purpose lens with a telephoto zoom. You'll enjoy better quality and a potentially longer total range while saving money at the same time.

 

[jwbryson1]

KmH, if you don't mind another follow up question. Why the 70-300mm over the 55-300mm?

The 55-300 is cheaper than the 70-300mm and seems to pick up where my 18-55 ends.

The 70-300mm FX would still work on my D90 (a DX camera)?

 

[jwbryson1]

The review of the 18-200mm also calls that lens "highly recommended" so I'm not sure I buy your argument. The lens creep does annoy me but I love that lens and kinda hate to give it up. It's very convenient to have such a long zoom in a single lens.

 

[spacefuzz]

I agree with Amochles, flash will give you fog and fairly flat photos. Fine for remembrances, but not great for displaying the grandeur of the cave. Im a caver and have only brought my dslr underground once, not fun to carry while crawling
They most likely wont let you take a tripod and youll probobly be on a group that moves rather fast. I would recomment either a bean bag or really high ISO. In show caves I usually try to use their lighting since its designed to be dramatic anyways. Shoot in RAW if you can and just fix white balance afterwords.

I wouldnt really worry about being in Shennandoah caverns or someplace light that in an earthquake. You subject yourself to far more risk driving there than actually being underground.

 

[KmH]

The review of the 18-200mm also calls that lens "highly recommended" so I'm not sure I buy your argument. The lens creep does annoy me but I love that lens and kinda hate to give it up. It's very convenient to have such a long zoom in a single lens.

Yep, the Nikon 18-200 is recommend for it's convenience, not it's image quality.

Like yourself, and many others, convenience is more important than the issues with the image quality. Nikon sells a lot of the 18-200 mm. I have had 2 of them. I bought the second one hoping it would perform better than the first one. It didn't, and for me the cost of the lens is way more than it's worth.

 

[table1349]

KmH, if you don't mind another follow up question. Why the 70-300mm over the 55-300mm?

The 55-300 is cheaper than the 70-300mm and seems to pick up where my 18-55 ends.

The 70-300mm FX would still work on my D90 (a DX camera)?

Just wanted to add. The difference between 55mm and 70mm is about one step back.

 

[jaomul]

Also if you like the 18-200 I wouldn't let a review tell you it has problems that you don't see. I'd prefer to have a cheap 18-200 on and get that once in a lifetime shot when I needed a focal length of 20 than have a very expensive 70- whatever length and miss it. They both have their place