do you use macro or zoom lens?

[viodea]

I'm thinking about getting a macro lens for aquarium pics but not sure if it's a good idea. I've heard macro lens focus much slower.

I think macro will be better for less mobile subjects, especially coral closeups. But for fish, I worry focusing and framing maybe a problem.

What's your experience with macro lens?
What do you like it the most?
What kind of picture do you use it most?
What's the spec. for macro lens, Brand, focal length, & f-stop?


thanks

[MCary]

Macro lenses are for macro shots. Don't confuse closeups with macros. Traditionally, Macro means the subject is projected on the sensor or film at a 1:1 ratio. That is, a 1/2 inch fly will cover 1/2 inch of the sensor or film. That is based on the old 35 mm, today 1:2 is what alot of lenses do.

That displays individual tentacles of a coral or the squares on a fly's eye.

Closeups are just shots that basically fill the screen with the subject.

For macros you need a good macro lens. It focus from very close to infinity.

For closeups of fish, you may need a faster lens. Because, no matter how bright your aquarium seems, it is actually dim to the camera. This is because of all the light in the blue spectrum. >10,000. Your camera's sensor has 3x more green and red sensors than blue. (2 green for every one red and blue) Its more technical than that, but I'm trying to keep the response short.

In a dim environment and fast moving fish, you need to be able to open her up. Most zooms won't work that well unless you wanna put out the big bucks. Yeah, I know, I'll get the "the kit lens takes GREAT pictures" It doesn't, it only looks that way if your comparing to your old point and shoot. Then yeah, great picture.

SO...... answer to questions.

I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro and a 50mm Sigma Macro. Both are great, Sigma is very affordable.

I like the most is the clarity for a non-L lens. Plus since it focuses to infinity, it makes a great midrange telephoto. Nice portrait lens.

I use it for macros only. I use a 50mm f1.4 for fish shots and if I had the money, I'd use a 80mm f1.2. The 50mm f1.4 is also a great lens and only costs $80.

Doea any of this help, or just alot of wind?

Mike

PS I see by your other posts that you are not a newb and much of what I said you might already know or possibly disagree with even. Please do not be offended if it seems that I'm talking down. Its just my way. I seem to set things up by way of explanations before I answer a question.

[viodea]

I'm not offended at all. I do believe talking down in forum is better because you don't know who's going to read this.

Although I'm not a newb to photography but I'm totally new to macro photography. I wonder if it worth the $$$ to buy a macro lens just to take a few type of pictures.

My 17-50mm is fast focus but sometimes not quite long enough or focus close enough when I took pictures of my tiny clown fishes.

I was thinking about getting canon 60mm macro but may not be long enough for me. I don't like the 100mm because of it's very slow to focus. This may not be a problem because even with my zoom, I still use manual zoom to limit planning (keeping focusing sensor on subject)

btw. 50mm f/1.4 is not $80, F/1.8 is.

["Umm, fish?"]

You can take macro with any lens, you just need to get some extension tubes to move the lens away from the sensor. The only differences are that macros will usually focus to 1:1 without extension tubes and that the optics on the macro are designed to give you great quality at 1:1.

What you need to worry about with macro lenses is the minimum focusing distance. With the 60mm, you need to be right on top of your subject to get 1:1. With the 100mm, I think I have 4-5 inches of space between subject and lens. (BTW, that's pretty true whether you go with a macro lens or just use extension tubes on a regular lens.)

Don't worry too much about focus speed. When you are taking macros, most of the time you leave the lens on manual, focused on the minimum focusing distance, and move the camera back and forth to adjust the plane of focus.

Good luck!

[Blazer88]

I have used plenty of dedicated macro lenses for fish shots with good success. I have experience with the Canon EF 100mm F/2.8, EF-s 60mm F/2.8, and Sigma 150mm F/2.8. I have found that all of them focus fast enough for taking fish shots. I sold the 100mm a while back in favor for both the 60mm and 150mm. I find the 60mm better for fish shots, on average, since I can use a slower shutter speed (because of the shorter focal length) given that it isn't a fast moving fish. Some of my favorite shots have come from my 60mm. It's a little more difficult to take fish shots with the Sigma 150mm since I would have to stand across the room for it to fit in the frame. I also use my 17-55mm F/2.8 IS and really like that one as well. I find that most lenses will work well given they are F/2.8 or faster and have some type of USM focusing mechanism.

[edwing206]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12140469#post12140469 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Blazer88
I find that most lenses will work well given they are F/2.8 or faster and have some type of USM focusing mechanism.

AKA, $$$ :D

[viodea]

blazer88 - Is there anytime you find the 60mm not long enough for your shot? Do you see any limitation on that lens on aquarium photography?

In what situation do you prefer one lens over the other?

Do you use flash? If so, built-in or strobe?

[Blazer88]

I find the 60mm a bit on the short end when I'm trying to get good macros of something beyond 6", which is why I bought the Sigma 150mm. As I see it, I used my 60mm when I wanted pictures of fish or general tank shots and I use my Sigma 150mm when I wanted to get macro's (and use my tripod/shutter release, extension tubes, TCs). I actually just sold my 60mm since it hasn't seen too much use since I bought my 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens. I don't use a flash for any of my shots.

Here are a few examples from each of the lenses.

Sigma 150mm F/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/LPS/IMG_1862-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Zoa/IMG_5146-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/267934964_6Ex3r-O.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/267934492_eHsMj-O.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Ben/IMG_1214-Edit.jpg

[Blazer88]

EF-s 60mm F/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Fish/IMG_3377-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Fish/IMG_6953-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Fish/IMG_5842-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Fish/Dang/IMG_5449-Edit.jpg

[Blazer88]

And some from my 17-55mm F/2.8 IS (which is an amazing low-light lens)

EF-s 17-55 F/2.8 IS
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/AOP2/IMG_2841-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Ben/IMG_1086-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/Ben/IMG_1075-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Fish%20Tank/AOP2/IMG_2781-Edit.jpg

[Chris2500DK]

The octopus pic is amazing!

[viodea]

wow... you got some amazing pictures.
I guess a longer lens will be better since I have a 17-55mm already. 60mm is not going to make too much of a different because I can't get my lens into the water and get close to the subject.

[RUGDOG]

O K bear with me I am a little thick....We have a canon eos rebel xt with an ef-s 18-55 as well as a sigma 55-200 f4-5.6. I want some macro shots and cant seem to do it with what I have. can I or do I just need a macro lens? If so what could I get to do a decent job but be affordable. I am not the photographer. My wife thinks she is. But if I have to buy a special lens it wont be used much. Just to document growth and post on RC. Help please

["Umm, fish?"]

If you want to dabble with it, extension tubes are the cheap way to go. All that extension tubes are is small metal ... well ... extensions that move your lens a little ways away from the sensor in your camera. The more expensive ones (that you should buy if you want to do this, IMO) have attachments on each end that will connect lens and camera so that they can keep communicating to each other despite the tube in between.

I think these are what I use: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=375102&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo

[RUGDOG]

Awesome, it says it is not recomended for the ef-s 18-55 that I mentioned I had. Will it make a good enough macro with my 55-200 f4-5.6?

["Umm, fish?"]

I would assume so. It says that EF-S are the problemmakers. :) You could call B&H tomorrow and ask....

[RUGDOG]

thanks for all your help Andy! I will call them tomorrow.
(I bought the equipment I have now from them too)

[RUGDOG]

Hi Andy if you read this thread again I thought you or someone else might give an opinion on this http://cgi.ebay.com/Quantaray-70-300mm-Zoom-AF-MF-Cannon-Lens-Tele-Macro_W0QQitemZ110239239099QQihZ001QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[RUGDOG]

or this
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EF-28-105-USM-Macro-Zoom-EOS-Lens_W0QQitemZ320233090201QQihZ011QQcategoryZ152380QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[RUGDOG]

I hope this is alright to do this here. I am going to do it once or twice more.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-28-105-ultrasonic-zoom-lens-with-macro_W0QQitemZ190209360488QQihZ009QQcategoryZ152380QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[RUGDOG]

I am going to stop there but there are several more. some opinions would be much appreciated or if you think I would be better to go the extensions?
Thanks Terry

["Umm, fish?"]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12229161#post12229161 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RUGDOG
Hi Andy if you read this thread again I thought you or someone else might give an opinion on this http://cgi.ebay.com/Quantaray-70-300mm-Zoom-AF-MF-Cannon-Lens-Tele-Macro_W0QQitemZ110239239099QQihZ001QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Please take this with a grain of salt because I haven't used either lens.

Personally, I think I would go for the Canon lens, but that's me. I did a quick Google for reviews and the Quantaray has really mixed reviews (indicative to me of a product line where quality control is pretty iffy). Fred Miranda forums didn't even bother to review that lens (and that should tell you something). Here's their review on the Canon: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

Oh, and 1:2 (half life-size) isn't really macro and if you get that you'll probably wind up adding extension tubes anyway.

[RUGDOG]

so the one that is 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is the only one that would work ok or no?

["Umm, fish?"]

No, the other one would likely work as a lens, it just might not have a very good quality.

Truthfully, I'd try getting a set of tubes and see if you can get the lenses you have to work. That's your cheapest option and plenty of people shoot macro with tubes.