Best all around aquarium lens for Canon Xsi

[Recty]

I'm looking at getting a Canon Xsi here in a week or two.

For getting good shots of the fish in my aquarium (not super close macro shots of corals, but moving fish shots that show a lot of detail) which lens should I get?

I can get it for $100 cheaper without the 18-55mm lens, I was thinking about doing that and instead ordering with a lens better suited to the aquarium shots I want.

Or is that kit lens pretty good for aquarium shots? I dont really know a whole ton about dSLRs, this will be my first one.

 

[nickb]

Does the 18-55 lens have image stabilization (18-55mm IS)? If so, it has been getting very positive reviews (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11). For $100, it would probably be a good investment as a general lens. It focuses down to about 9" (about 1/3 of life size). You could spend a lot more money on a better lens. But, if you are just getting into dSLR, it likely would make a good starting point and should be able to take reasonable fish and tank pictures.

On the other hand, the non-IS 18-55 got much less positive reviews

BTW, have you tried the XSi yet? Some people find that the body form doesn't suit their hand well. YMMV

 

["Umm fish?"]

Honestly, I like the 100mm macro for fish portraits, too. You don't _have_ to take pictures at life size. It's not the fastest lens but it's super crisp. Since it's 100mm, you have to stay a little further back, but it also allows me to keep the composition simple by making sure that it's not a very wide shot.

Good luck!

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13721262#post13721262 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by "Umm, fish?"
Honestly, I like the 100mm macro for fish portraits, too. You don't _have_ to take pictures at life size. It's not the fastest lens but it's super crisp. Since it's 100mm, you have to stay a little further back, but it also allows me to keep the composition simple by making sure that it's not a very wide shot.

Good luck!

But the focus is SLOOOOOOOW and fish are typically FAST. The 100mm Macro is a coral lens, not a fish lens. He spicifcally wants a fish lens. I would recomend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. I would consider this the best lens for fish and your basic day to day walk around shooting. I own it along with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and they make a heck of a pair. I would think every Canon shooter should get one of the four 70-200mm lenses, and the 24-70 (or 24-105 f/4) just make sense. The aperture is fast, the auto focus is lighting fast, and you have 3x zoom to play with. The 24-70 f/2.8 is IMO the perfect fish lens as well as an excellent lens for just about everything else day to day.

 

[Recty]

Hmmm, there is one package that comes with the following lenses.

Canon 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 USM
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III

Now that isn't a 24-70 f/2.8 like you reocmmended, but it is close. And it isnt the 70-200mm either, but I would think 75-300 would be better anyway?

Like I say, I dont know a whole ton about cameras but I'm willing to learn, I just want to make sure I get some good lenses in the begining. One that is good for getting nice, crisp shots of my fish and hopefully something good for shooting everyday stuff as well.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

No a 75-300 isn't in the same league as the 70-200. Talking baseball, the 70-200 is a major league team. The 75-300 is a high school softball team. The 70-200 (all 4 of them) are amazing lenses. The 75-300 is a terrible lens. Your going to be hard pressed to find any zoom lens sharper than a 70-200 f/4. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS is arguably a little softer, but I can shoot at night without flash with it. The 75-300 by the was voted "worst Canon lens" at photography-on-the.net. The 28-105 f/4-5.6 is another cheap-o piece of plastic I wouldn't recommend to my mother-in-law. The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 wouldn't be too bad though.

My bet is still on a 24-70 or 24-105. For fish, the 24-70 as you will use that f/2.8 lots. In photography terms reef tanks aren't nearly as bright as logic may suggest. If you can't afford either one, then try the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 NOT f/4-5.6

 

["Umm fish?"]

Well, I do have to admit that I don't use autofocus on the 100mm, especially for fish, but hardly ever at all, really. I'd also imagine that $3,000+ on lenses for the f2.8 IS lenses right off the bat is probably a bit daunting.

I do believe that what Titusville is saying is true. I haven't shot with the 24-70 f2.8, but I do own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it is one heck of a lens. Fast, crisp but very heavy.

But ... aside from the kit lens, the 100mm is the first lens I bought. I don't use it nearly as much any more, but there was a time when I went months without ever taking it off of my camera. By itself it is a great macro lens. Add an cheap extension tube and you are already past 1:1. And, I have used it for fish portraits as well as for people portraiture. I eventually reached a time where I started to feel constrained by the limitations of the fixed focal length. But by then I had decided that I had the photography bug and was ready to pursue that more seriously. But I've never regretted that lens purchase.

All that said, it is typical for people beginning photography these days to start off with a couple of the slower (f/4.0-f/5.6 is pretty slow) zoom lenses. But, if you go that route I'd advise you to also upgrade your flash right off the bat, too. Aquariums are pretty low-light environments and a slow lens is really going to cost you in terms of shutter speed. It'll be really hard to get a non-blurry fish photo with a slow lens, especially as you increase the zoom. (F4.0 is the fastest those two lenses get, but that only goes at the shorter zoom lengths for both. At the longer lengths, f/5.6 is as fast as they'll go.)

So, the downside of the 100mm macro is that the autofocus _is_ slow, but it's a really fast lens (f2.8) and, so, does a little better in low-light like an aquarium. Is it such a bad thing to learn to focus manually?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The 100mm Macro is one HELL of a lens, by no way shape form or fashion am I arguing that point. The only reason I am not telling him to buy the 100mm Macro as opposed to the 24-70 is that he specifically stated he doesn't want close ups of corals and really wants to get his fish. I am just stabbing in the dark here, but he may have a fish only with live rock predator tank or something.

To Recty: I think you will eventually buy the 100mm Macro as really everyone who shoots with a DSLR, whether they have a fish tank or not, should own a good macro just for the experience and thrill. This is a "specialty lens" however and the 24-70 would be much better adapted for shooting your kids at Christmas time, or the streets of NYC on your next vacation, or...your fish.

 

["Umm fish?"]

Fair enough, and you make good points. I'm going to have to get that 24-70 f2.8 at some point. I hate the awful kit lens version that came with the camera. But, how many frags can I get with that $1,300?

A question for you: How much of a difference does the image stabilization make with the short focal length of that zoom? It makes a heck of a difference with the 70-200, but that thing is _so_ heavy I can't imagine shooting without it.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I am SO GLAD I got the IS version of the 70-200. The panning "mode 2" is a great feature as well. Walking around the town block party at midnight shooting street performers @ 200mm f/2.8 ISO 1600 1/100 really makes you appreciate the f/2.8 AND the IS.

With the 24/70, I can get away with 200mm f/2.8 ISO 1600 and no IS. The results are comparable. On the 24-70 there are many times I would use the IS if I had it simply because I had it, but I never found myself really missing it. With the 70-200, IS has many more real world applications because of the telephoto nature.

I debated long and hard for about 6 months between the 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4 IS. In the end I went with the logic that double the shutter speed and more bokeh options beats image stabilization at that focal length any day (or night). I went to my favorite camera store and picked up a 24-70 f/2.8 along with the 40D that had just came out and never looked back

 

[Recty]

Thanks for all the input guys, this helps a lot.

So I'm trying to get away with only having spent about $6-700 on this camera and lens setup. Is there any way to spend that amount and still get a good lens? Otherwise I'll just stick with the 18-55 that has IS and comes with it.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Naw, not really. With that budget stick with the 18-55 to give you something to learn on. When the funds come, you will know what you want and why you want it for yourself. I am chipping in on another thread simultaneously to this one and the OP there is getting a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS package. You should check that out. I think that would be a good general purpose starter kit, but fish are not general purpose subjects. You really need the expensive lens for what you want to do IMO.

Actually screw all of that. Get the camera and the 100 Macro like my partner above was saying. The 100mm will give you the f/2.8 and one of the sharpest tools in the shed pun intended. Its out of your budget but you will thank your self or wish you did later...your choice.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I just had a eureka moment. The guy from the other thread asked if there are any lenses for fast moving objects on a budget. At first I though "pfffttt", but wait! The 50mm f/1.8 will get your fast moving fish and its SUPER cheap!!! You should consider that or the 100mm Macro (I still recommend the 100mm though). While it can be done, the 18-55 IS just isn't a reef lens, and you want tank pictures.

 

[Recty]

So 50mm means it has no zoom, right? You're stuck at a non adjustable optical zoom? I'm still figuring this stuff out. I guess that would be OK though, since a f/1.8 would let me take nice fast tank pictures...

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Right you can't zoom in and out. It's not as bad as you might think. If you learn to take pictures with a lens that can't zoom, when you buy your first nice lens that can you'll be better for it. Many skilled photographers have a bag full of super high quality lenses that don't zoom, called primes, and they do some great work. The "Holy Trinity" of prime lenses filling every serious Canon primer's bag consist of the 35mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.2, and the 135mm f/2. After that there are many more, but every serious prime shooter usually have those 3 in common. The 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap at such a high quality it should be on every newbie budget conscious Canon photog's list. Again though I really think in your case "Umm, fish?" had it right with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. The focus speed on the 50 f/1.8 isn't anything to write home about either although it is till much better than the macro's, he suggested to just focus with your fingers which is a viable option. "Umm, fish?" knows what hes talking about and I'd listen. The point is...at that price of the 50mm f/1.8, image quality, and shier speed...who cares? It is a wonderful "training wheel lens".

 

[Recty]

Yeah, that really makes sense. I wen into that other thread you mentioned, sounds like the 50mm f/1.8 is about what I need for begining fish photography. So is it worth getting the 18-55mm IS lens that can come as a kit with the Rebel Xsi or should I just skip that and buy the body? It's $100 more if the body comes with the 18-55 or $200 more just to buy that lens seperately later, so if it's any good it might be good to get it when I order the camera.

 

[nickb]

Like all other decisions, you need to buy items that fit in your price range. The 24-70 f2.8 is an L series lens, the Canon professional caliber lenses. It look like a great lens but it costs $1,300, more than double the total price you want to pay on the whole kit. If you are just getting into photography, you don't need that calibre of lens - get a cheaper kit and learn how to use the camera. If you then get the 'bug', you will have a solid base to buy more expensive lens.

The XSi with 18-55 IS lens is selling for about $630 at B&H. The 50 mm f1.8 is about $90. It would let you shoot fish in lower light although, at f1.8, the lens sharpness drops off considerably. And, if you check out good fish pictures on the RC site, people are commonly using apertures of between 3.5 and 10 - you don't need to use f2.8 and large to take fish picture.

If you just plan to use the camera for tank photos, then getting the 50mm prime as your only lens could work out and save about $100. But, if you want to use the cameras for more general photography, you might find the 50mm limiting. First, the XSi sensor 'crops' the image, which converts the 50mm into an effective 80mm (based on the a lens used on a film camera). Second, you would likely find the wide angle range of the zoom of interest to taking landscapes. etc,

If you can stretch the budget, get both lens. If not, I'd get the zoom and not the prime. You'll still be able to take fish pictures but you will have a more versitle all-round lens.

 

[Recty]

Yeah, my total would end up being about $700 before shipping if I got the 50mm and the one that comes with it, which I can handle that, should give me some all around good shooting ability.

 

["Umm fish?"]

One thing you might want to check out, B&H (very reputable, IMO) has a used XTi available:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457506-REG/Canon_1236B002_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html

Or, with the lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457541-REG/Canon_1236B001_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html

And then maybe start out with a flash upgrade?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/571297-USA/Canon_2805B002_430EX_II_Speedlite_TTL.html

I hate the kit lens that came with mine, but that was a few years ago with the 20D and it might be a different ball of wax now.

I thought you might want to see a fish portrait with the 100mm (sorry about the dust on the sensor):

That was a fish in full motion (pacing the tank at the aquarium at my zoo), manual focus. I did use a supplemental flash. The in-camera flash is pretty underpowered and you get a lot of light fall-off around the edges of the photo, so IMO it's pretty important to upgrade the flash. That's an uncropped photo, just reduced for the web. I was standing pretty close.

That 50mm lens is a great option, especially as you aren't interested in macro shots. You can easily get the magnification of the 50mm up to and greater than 1:1, but a short lens like that won't give you any working distance from the lens to your subject while taking macro shots. I take a lot of macros with a 65mm lens and you have to be _close_ to the subject. The 50 would make that even worse. If you ever see yourself wanting to do macro, then the 100mm is a good investment.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

If your going to get both, then get both. If your going to get one or the other...get the 50mm f/1.8

Seriously, once you figure out what you really want to buy, you will never use either of these lenses ever again. I think the practice with f/1.8 is much more valuable than practice with 18mm.