A little lens help please

[180galreefer]

I have a Canon Rebel XT and I want a lens that will take the best close ups of coral. My question is two part:

1- I was going to rent a lens and filter(s) from www.borrowlens.com. What would be my choice for optimal shots ranging from 3" to 18" ? I am open to multiple lens as well.

2- what is the difference between a 100mm macro lens and a 50-250mm telephoto lens? Besides the obvious range difference

Thanks all!

 

[Recty]

A macro lens will let you get up real close and still focus, so the image appears larger. You can focus with a 100mm canon macro at 6" away from the end of the lens.

With the 50-250mm, your minimum focus distance might be something like three feet, so even though you have more range, the subject still appears smaller in the viewfinder.

 

[180galreefer]

A macro lens will let you get up real close and still focus, so the image appears larger. You can focus with a 100mm canon macro at 6" away from the end of the lens.

With the 50-250mm, your minimum focus distance might be something like three feet, so even though you have more range, the subject still appears smaller in the viewfinder.

Thank you!

Would this maybe work?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sony-Alpha-SAL-30M28-Macro-Lens-DT30mm-F2.8-with-SAM/14237628

 

[Zebodog]

Thank you!

Would this maybe work?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sony-Alpha-SAL-30M28-Macro-Lens-DT30mm-F2.8-with-SAM/14237628

That won't physically fit on your Canon; it uses a Minolta A type mount.

 

[Zebodog]

Take a look at the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro. It's a 1:1 macro that will give you a focal length of close to 100mm on your APS-C sensor. When your not shooting macros, it will do well as a portrait lens or all around general prime.

It's probably a little pricier than what your initially looking at, but well worth it.

 

[180galreefer]

Take a look at the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro. It's a 1:1 macro that will give you a focal length of close to 100mm on your APS-C sensor. When your not shooting macros, it will do well as a portrait lens or all around general prime.

It's probably a little pricier than what your initially looking at, but well worth it.

Thanks! Any filter suggestions?

 

[Zebodog]

For close up work with corals, I would be tempted to forgo the filter and shoot in RAW. If you find you are getting reflections from the tank, a decent polarizing filter should take care of any pesky reflections.

When outdoors I go with a UV or polarizing depending on what and where I'm shooting.

 

[180galreefer]

For close up work with corals, I would be tempted to forgo the filter and shoot in RAW. If you find you are getting reflections from the tank, a decent polarizing filter should take care of any pesky reflections.

When outdoors I go with a UV or polarizing depending on what and where I'm shooting.

Great. Thanks for the info!

 

[IslandCrow]

Agreed. A circular polarizer is the only filter I'd consider. Realize you'll lose 1-2 stops of light, though. I usually throw a polarizer on when I'm taking pictures of corals, but leave it on when photographing moving objects. There's not a really big difference either way. Also keep in mind that quality polarizers are not cheap. You're probably looking to spend in the vicinity of $100. Oh, and make sure it's a circular polarizer and not a linear polarizer. The latter does not work correctly on digital cameras.

For the lens, I like Canon's 100mm macro. It allows me a good amount of reach for getting really close-up macros of objects towards the back of my tank. I can always move further back, but that pesky glass keeps getting in the way when I try to get closer. Canon now has two versions of this lens. The standard and the L (or Luxury) version with image stabilization. I almost always use a tripod, so the extra $500 for the L version certainly wouldn't be worth it for me.

 

[returnofsid]

No need for a CP filter. They're made for reducing glare, which isn't an issue with tank photography.

As for the difference between a 100mm Macro and 55-250mm;

1. 100mm has a maximum aperture of 2.8
55-250 has a maximum aperture of 4

This will become very important, when taking pictures in your tank.

2. 100mm has a minimum focusing distance of 1'.
55-250 has a minumum focusing distance of 3.6'

This will become very important, when taking close up photos.

3. 100mm will give you a true 1:1 representation of what you're taking a picture of.
55-250 won't even be close.

With the 100mm, you can take true Macro photography AND it's also a great portraiture lens. However, you're stuck at 100mm Prime.

The 100mm is a much better built lens.

The 55-250 has IS (image stabilization) but it's a very cheaply built lens (plasticy feel)

If your priority is to take close up photography of your corals or fish, the 100mm is the only way to go!!

 

[IslandCrow]

A polarizer reduces or alters the effects of light diffraction. This is most evident when water is involved. Think about when we most often use polarizers. To saturate skies (a lot of water there), taking pictures of waterfalls and other bodies of water, and after a rainshower when the leaves and grass are wet. A polarizer can indeed have beneficial effects with aquarium photography, and does more than just reduce glare on the glass. I agree that it's far from essential in most circumstances, especially since the water in our tanks is generally very clear and pretty evenly lit, not to mention you're generally shooting from the side and not through the surface of the water, but I certainly wouldn't discount them entirely.

 

[Zebodog]

With the 100mm, you can take true Macro photography AND it's also a great portraiture lens. However, you're stuck at 100mm Prime.

If your priority is to take close up photography of your corals or fish, the 100mm is the only way to go!!

The 60mm f/2.8 macro would be worth a look as well.

The 100mm is a good lens and when used correctly will provide stunning results however on a crop sensor such as the XT, the focal length will be an equivalent of 160mm - a bit much for portraiture.

The 60mm will be much closer to a 100mm equivalent on the XT which would be much better for portraits.

I'd give the nod to the 100mm for strictly macro work but if I intended to have the lens pull double duty, the 60mm would be much more useful.

 

[RVANANO]

I am also curious about the 60mm or 100mm. For the same reasons. I have a Canon 40D. Which would you suggest for that? 60 or 100?

 

[Luiz Rocha]

For tank photography I would suggest the 100mm simply because it gives you more space between the lens and the subject. With the 60 there will be times when you will be too far away (because the tank glass won't let you get any closer) to get really good close-up pictures. With the 100mm you can stay further back and still get close-up shots (what makes it also better for photographing shy fishes).

 

[returnofsid]

The 60mm f/2.8 macro would be worth a look as well.

The 100mm is a good lens and when used correctly will provide stunning results however on a crop sensor such as the XT, the focal length will be an equivalent of 160mm - a bit much for portraiture.

The 60mm will be much closer to a 100mm equivalent on the XT which would be much better for portraits.

I'd give the nod to the 100mm for strictly macro work but if I intended to have the lens pull double duty, the 60mm would be much more useful.

I'll have to respectfully disagree here. I shoot tons of portraiture and use the 100mm. So you have to get a little further from the subject. Granted, most of my non-reef related photography is outdoors. I've shot prom and senior pictures for many people. I've also shot quite a few weddings, using the 100mm and Nifty Fifty, only. When I'm shooting portraiture, indoors, I use the Nifty Fifty prime. Inexpensive and wonderful 50mm lens!

On the other hand, I've never used the 60mm Macro, so maybe my argument is invalid....lol.

 

[IslandCrow]

Personally, I'd go with the 100mm macro. I agree with Zebodog that 100mm is a bit long for portraiture on a crop sensor. . .for that matter, I think it's a little long on a full frame, especially if you want to do full body shots (it's certainly not bad for head and shoulder shots). If you're planning on shooting portraits, though, a 50mm prime would be a very good and relatively inexpensive option. The f/1.8 (or "nifty-fifty") is very inexpensive, the f/1.4 is better build quality and slightly better glass, and not too horribly expensive (around $400 I believe). Then there's the f/1.2L, which isn't worth the extra $1000 for most people. But I digress. Speaking just from the perspective of aquarium photography, I'd definitely go with the 100mm over the 60mm. I've even used my 300mm when shooting particularly shy fish.

 

[bizzarro]

I would go with the 100mm for the reasons already stated. Unless the area where your tank is located is crammed where you have no space move is the only reason why I'd go with a 60mm. If you are able, you can move to set up the shot.