Now that I've got a DSLR, which macro lens should I buy?

I have a canon rebel and a solid tripod and remote

can someone please recommend a lens for taking pictures of single zoa/paly polyps inwhich I can get the camera up against the glass and polyp against the glass on the other side.

I would also like to have the ability to take a picture of maybe 10 polyps max on a perfectly sized l.r rubble that matches the 10 polyp size with the same lens if possible I'll also be able to move the colony close to glass along with the camera

I'll be shooting in manual mode

this is the lens that I was thinking of buying:

100 ef 100 mm f2.8

will I be able to get the same clarity and result with a lesser lens?

and will paying a extra few hundred $ benefit me if so what lens? and how?

trying to fill the whole picture with just 1 single zoa/paly up to around 10 zoa/paly's only.
 
Joel A said:
debating between nikon 105mm macro, or 60mm... i know the 105 is overall a bit nicer of a lens, and it gives you a bit more working room with it's minimum focusing distance, but how much of a difference does this make for reef tank photography? Is the extra telephoto like coverage a hassle, or a blessing? Is it worth the extra money?
Click to expand...

+1. I would like to know if it would be better to get 105mm or lower? Also if its a matter of money, would you go Nikon with shorter working distance, or less expensive make with a longer distance? Looking for a lense for a D300 if anyone is shooting on one and has some pointers on their favorite.
 
In the Canon camp I have both the 100mm and the mp 65mm. The 65mm is without a doubt the king of macro lenses, but it has many limiting qualities and disadvantages, depending on the subject. It has no focus (it has a zoom ring to adjust the zoom level). The max focal distance is a few inches at 1:1 and nearly touching the lens at 5:5, the image through the viewfinder is incredibly dark requiring a modeling light. The apertures it uses are so small that a ring flash is mandatory for nearly any shot other than direct sunlight on a still subject. The depth of field is paper thin. If you can cope with those limitations there is no other lens I have seen that can rival the quality of pictures it can produce. The 100mm is a nice lens that also can be used as a normal 100mm. In use as a macro lens it has everything you want for aquarium macro: Price is reasonable, has a focal distance that is usable for shooting in an aquarium, very sharp image quality, on larger apertures it can be used without a flash, has auto focus. There is a 180mm L macro that is more expensive and has a longer focal distance than the 100mm at 1:1 but its heavy and big.
 
There is also a new 100mm macro L lens with IS that looks awsome. here is an exerpt from the DP review "Just occasionally a lens turns up which delivers such implausibly good results in our studio tests that I have to go back and repeat everything, double checking all settings to make sure I haven't done something wrong. The Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro is one example; but in this case when I repeated the tests, the results were if anything slightly better. There's little doubt that, all round, this is one of the very finest lenses we've seen - optically it's superb, and operationally it works very well too, with fast and positive autofocus, and one of the most effective image stabilization systems currently available. Throw in the high build quality, including dust- and splash-proofing, and it all adds up to a very desirable package indeed."
 
Hows Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro compared the the version without IS? I am trying to buy a good camera/lens without buying it brand new and forking over my life savings. I found a Canon 100 f2.8 USM Macro lens for sale. For someone who doesn't even own a camera right now, would I be able to notice the difference between the two?

Thanks for your help
 
Well for Canon, the IS means Image Stabilization, so it will correct some errors for you if your hand shakes from trying to hold for a long exposure. That being said, most aquarium shots, you are going to want/ need to use a tripod. Since you will be using a tripod, IS isn't necessary, and in fact, most people say to turn IS off (VR if you are a Nikon guy like me ;) ) when using a tripod.

Now the first lens you mentioned is an L series, and the second one is not. I am not sure if you just left off the L for the second one, or if it isn't an L series. I believe the L series for Canon is the their top of the line lenses, Grade A professional stuff. I don't think some one who doesn't own a camera would be able to a huge difference between the two. I am not sure if I could, and I have been in the hobby for almost 3 years... haha

Anyways, good luck with your purchase, and looking forward to seeing some stuff on here.

PS: I am sure a Canon guy can chime in correct any information I messed up.
 
I own the EF100mm and it is a great lens. It is good enough that unless you have used it for quite awhile and have some experience with macro photography it will take quite a while before you wished you had a better lens. The L IS USM 100mm is new and I haven't seen one. The DP review on it shows it to be an impressive improvement to the older 100mm. It isn't cheap and whether it's worth the difference in cost depends on your needs.
 
anyone tested or see anything wrong with this lense, Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro ED (VR-II) Vibration Reduction Telephoto Nikkor Lens - U.S.A. Warranty
 
Well, it is listed as a 'Micro' - not really sure what the real diff is, but really, true Macro I think really is Micro - not sure of the symantecs.

But... Per Nikkon -
Ideal for those new to macro photography, the AF-S DX MICRO NIKKOR 85MM F/3.5G VR boasts a 1:1 reproduction ratio, allowing photographers to get lifelike close-ups of more intricate textures and details, even down to the fine texture on flower petals or insect wings. On top of this, the VR II system provides both a steady viewfinder image for composition and sharper results at slow shutter speeds or when shooting movie clips.
 
What lense are you going with? I am in the market too, but was looking at the 105 before you posted the 85 - not sure now
 
yeah everyday I'm back and forth about buying a nikon brand 85mm or going for the Sigma 105mm

I think it might just depend on the day I order the darn thing. I've heard that the most importan thing is to be able to fill the lens with the coral so zoom is key. This makes me think the 105mm sigma, I can't afford the 105mm nikon at this point. The only review that was sorta negative on the sigma was the auto focus, but when shooting macro it needs to be manual anyway. I think I'll probably end up going with the 105mm Sigma to save some money as I've read and heard good things.
 
Both lenses provide the same magnification; 1:1. What the 105 gives you is slightly more working distance. In other words you can be a little further away and still get the same magnification.
 
thirst said:
Hows Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro compared the the version without IS? I am trying to buy a good camera/lens without buying it brand new and forking over my life savings. I found a Canon 100 f2.8 USM Macro lens for sale. For someone who doesn't even own a camera right now, would I be able to notice the difference between the two?

Thanks for your help
Click to expand...

I had both lenses, the old 100mm was good fast, and good picture quality but the new one is alot better, its an L lenses the picture quality is much better, much faster auto focus, i tried it out once and that was it, I dumped the old 100mm and went out and bought the IS one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

griss
Phone Camera Lens Kits
Replies
4
Views
148
Brian60077
Brian60077
T Diddy
I’ve got a parasite problem
Replies
15
Views
444
griss
griss
Z
Wrasse compatibility
Replies
0
Views
78
ZanaZoola14
Z
OrdinaryGirl
My 13.5 build - a wee reefie
Replies
15
Views
771
OrdinaryGirl
OrdinaryGirl
Dr. Reef
Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact
Replies
3
Views
289
jcarlilesiu
J
Back
Top