Best all around aquarium lens for Canon Xsi

Fast Primes! Both excellent and will cost you less than $400 total.

Canon 24mm/2.8 (or 1.4 if you have the $$$$)
Canon 50mm/1.8


By the way the 50 1.8 is an excellent lens that you'll certainly want to keep using. The build quality is generic but the image quality is top notch.
 
Yeah, I think I'm going to just end up with the Xsi and a 50mm f/1.8 for now. If that doesnt cut it for me, I can always upgrade.

That 70-200mm f/2.8 sure is looking nice, but yowzah, $1300 is out of my range right now.
 
The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens for $600, I would recommend the IS version though, that IS really helps on a 70-200...and if you have the f/4 you obviously can't go down to f/2.8 so IS would be even more importiant.
 
Wouldnt the f/4 be a little too slow for good crisp tank shots of fast moving fish? That was the only reason I was looking towards the f/2.8, I want nice sharp photos of the fish.
 
Yeah I was talking in general, I don't think I would use a 70-200 for tank shots at all. The 24-70 is better suited I think. You certainly could do it with a 70-200 though.
 
One cool thing you could do with your 210 gallon tank and a 70-200 is post on the side. Instead of the front viewing glass, move to the side of the tank and shoot the fish from there. The 70-200 is meant for reaching out and seeing from afar. You can't take a picture of anything closer than 4.6 feet away.
 
I don't think I would use anything beyond 100mm too much for tank shots.

Starting with the 50/1.8 is a good idea. Just for reference, on a 40D (same crop as your camera) I have to stand about 4 feet away from a 12 gallon nano cube to get the entire tank in the shot. At about 1.5 feet I can mostly fill the frame with a small mushroom rock. In fact I just snapped a pic for you to illustrate, this is not cropped only resized.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30740619@N08/3023043939/" title="2008-11_1229 600x900 by Dinardi Family, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/3023043939_9af9b24588_o.jpg" width="900" height="600" alt="2008-11_1229 600x900" /></a>


I just walked up to the tank and snapped, so the pic isn't great but you should get the idea of the focal length. I shot at ISO400, f/4, 1/50... which is pretty slow, although the lighting is pretty weak in that tank too. Same situation at f/2.8 would have been 1/100 which is better but you'd like to be shooting fish even faster.

With the Canon 50mm/1.8 and 100mm/2.8 macro you'll be able to get all kinds of shots.



Edit: 50/1.8 used in picture above
 
Last edited:
Which lens was used here? 50mm f/1.8? 50mm f/1.4? A zoom of some sort? Great demonstration by the way. I think a 70-200 would be way overkill for anything but a Shamoo tank.
 
Aha! I just found another 100mm portrait for you that I really like for the drama of the image. I took this one at the LFS. Again, I used supplemental flash.

43.jpg
 
Cool trigger :)


I used the Canon 50/1.8 above, forgot to mention that on the first go around. I have to dream about owning the 50/1.4 for now....
 
Nice, that mushroom shot looks really nice for "just taking a picture" and nothing else special. How will that 50 f/1.8 handle moving fish though?

So I'm a little confused I guess, the 100mm I thought was for macro stuff... Yet you got a pretty good picture of a Niger trigger with it? Am I misunderstanding what a 100mm macro lens does?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13727907#post13727907 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by "Umm, fish?"
Again, I used supplemental flash.
How do you use supplemental flash for tank photographs? I would have expected serious problems with light reflection from the tank walls. Holding the flash at an angle might minimize that issue but wouldn't you have trouble getting the right exposure? I'd be interested in learning about the technique you used. Thanks.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13728128#post13728128 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
Nice, that mushroom shot looks really nice for "just taking a picture" and nothing else special. How will that 50 f/1.8 handle moving fish though?
I thought the same thing. I'd be happy with that quality of image after a real effort, never mind a causal shot :)

So I'm a little confused I guess, the 100mm I thought was for macro stuff... Yet you got a pretty good picture of a Niger trigger with it? Am I misunderstanding what a 100mm macro lens does?
A macro lens is just a normal lens which has been designed for optimal optical performance when focused close to the subject. It also has an ability to focus closer than a standard lens which gives greater magnification. It excels at taking images of small objects (which a normal lens can't do). But, you can still use a macro lens as a telephoto. That's one of the things which makes this lens so versatile. Some people use macro lenses for portraits although they are sometimes too sharp.

To photograph the fish, you would just back away from the tank sufficiently far so that the fish fills to viewfinder.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13728128#post13728128 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
How will that 50 f/1.8 handle moving fish though?
Moving fish would be more of the 50 f/1.8's designated purpose as opposed to a stationary coral.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13728155#post13728155 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by nickb
How do you use supplemental flash for tank photographs? I would have expected serious problems with light reflection from the tank walls. Holding the flash at an angle might minimize that issue but wouldn't you have trouble getting the right exposure? I'd be interested in learning about the technique you used. Thanks.

One of the magics of DSLR's is that the lenses are removable. Well, the flash units are removable to. One extra advantage of the flash, or speedlight, is that it can still do its job 10 feet away from the camera.
Example: A flash mounted on an NBA Basketball goal. so that a photographer standing court-side with a 70-200 can get that studio lit shot you see in the magazine.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13728128#post13728128 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
Nice, that mushroom shot looks really nice for "just taking a picture" and nothing else special. How will that 50 f/1.8 handle moving fish though?

So I'm a little confused I guess, the 100mm I thought was for macro stuff... Yet you got a pretty good picture of a Niger trigger with it? Am I misunderstanding what a 100mm macro lens does?

The autofocus on the 50/1.8 is average, it's not USM and it's loud and laughably "chunky" but it does the job. It's also impressively sharp (not evident in my snapshot). IMO there is no reason for anyone to *not* own this lens at about $80.

All other things being equal, that's why I posed the information about the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed that I shot at above. If your tank is brightly lit you might gain as much as a full stop. I don't know what ISO you're comfortable shooting at, or aperture, or even what shutter speed will work best for you - but as long as you understand exposure you should be able to find a winning combination. Fish are tricky regardless.

As already answered about the Canon 100mm macro, it can focus to infinity so it's not limited to macro shots like some macro lenses are. I would own this lens if my tank was actually running... darn money pits :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13728424#post13728424 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
One of the magics of DSLR's is that the lenses are removable. Well, the flash units are removable to. One extra advantage of the flash, or speedlight, is that it can still do its job 10 feet away from the camera.
Example: A flash mounted on an NBA Basketball goal. so that a photographer standing court-side with a 70-200 can get that studio lit shot you see in the magazine.
I get all that stuff. But, since you can't put your flash in the tank (which would place it underwater ;)), I'm wondering how you would set-up to take a tank shot with off-camera flash so that you don't get reflections and get proper exposure. I've gone away from flash for tank photos for these reasons.
 
How do you use supplemental flash for tank photographs? I would have expected serious problems with light reflection from the tank walls. Holding the flash at an angle might minimize that issue but wouldn't you have trouble getting the right exposure? I'd be interested in learning about the technique you used. Thanks.

The flashes I use are fairly specialized for macro photography. They have mount points way out on the end of my lenses because in macro shots, you are often so close to the subject that the shadow cast by the lens can cover the subject. But they are adjustable so that I can point them where I need them, so I can point them so that they won't make a glare on the glass.

But, the point of getting an off camera flash is that it's far more powerful and it offers you much more flexibility with regard to where you aim the light. As Nick says, it's about moving the flash so that it doesn't create a glare in the part of the glass you are shooting.

With through-the-lens photo metering and camera-flash communication, you really have a lot of control. Your camera can turn off the flash once you've gotten enough light for the exposure. I have a crazy theory about flash exposure control, though. I believe that the computer inside the camera wants to force the flash to play a fill-flash role. That is, the camera is trying everything it can to meter for the ambient light, only using the flash in a support role and never trying to use a flash as the main light for a shot where it can help it. I think it has a lot to do with engineer pre-conceptions about using as little power as possible so people don't have to constantly change the batteries.

That works fine outdoors in the sunlight, but aquarium photography is very low light and fish are very fast subjects. So, this means that the camera is constantly trying to use a very wide aperture and a very slow exposure speed and my fish photos without flash look horrible.

But, I'm taking most aquarium shots at home and I can essentially plug the camera into the wall if want to. (I use a supplemental, rechargeable battery pack.) So, I don't care how much battery I use with each shot. So, I force the camera to use a lot of power with each flash.

In manual mode, I purposely set the aperture to some very small number and I set the exposure to as fast a speed as I can, despite the fact that the camera's meter tells me that I'll be horribly underexposed. Then I take a test shot. The camera has no other option but to increase the power to the flash(es) and use them as the main light for the scene. The camera won't overexpose the shot. If it gets too much light, it'll cut power to the flash. If the test shot comes out too underexposed, I make adjustments to the settings and try again.

That's my flash philosophy. Like I said above, it doesn't work so well with some corals (acros look horrible with flash as the main light), but it works great with fish.
 
BTW, one of the aquarium mags on the stands now (I'll look it up) has an article about hooking up off-camera flashes above the tank pointed down so that the light and shadows look more natural. A good article and I plan to try experimenting in that direction when my new tank is finished.

The Strobist article that mothra linked to is also very cool. That huge sheet of paper looks like it makes for a nice diffusor.
 
Back
Top