What lens do you use for full tank shots?

[10" Red Devil]

Just wondering what lens or lenses are best for full tank shots? Right now I have a Canon 30D with a 100-400 EF L IS USM lens.

Thanks.

 

[jwedehase]

I use the 28-135mm IS, because it's what I have in that range. I prefer a wider angle shot, versus zoomed in. A friend of mine uses the 100mm macro on his 240g (8 foot long), and stitches together three photos. Those also come out nice.

Given the choice of any lens, I would probably choose the 24-70 L, or the razor sharp 70-200, just because of its reputation for clarity.

 

[10" Red Devil]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10871927#post10871927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jwedehase
I use the 28-135mm IS, because it's what I have in that range. I prefer a wider angle shot, versus zoomed in. A friend of mine uses the 100mm macro on his 240g (8 foot long), and stitches together three photos. Those also come out nice.

Given the choice of any lens, I would probably choose the 24-70 L, or the razor sharp 70-200, just because of its reputation for clarity.

Is the 70-200 the f2.8 lens?

Thanks.

 

[jwedehase]

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS is known for its razor sharpness, yes. I don't know if it's any different in the non-IS or the f/4 versions.

 

[10" Red Devil]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10873682#post10873682 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jwedehase
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS is known for its razor sharpness, yes. I don't know if it's any different in the non-IS or the f/4 versions.

Wow that lens is costly! Almost 2K!

 

[gregr]

I've got the older non-IS version of the 70-200 and it's optically the equivalent of the newer version.
If you're looking to save money you could go with a standard 50mm prime lens- they focus fairly close (though not like a macro lens) and are very sharp. If you are thinking of getting the 100mm macro lens... do it If the tank is big I'll use either a 17-40 or 24-105 since my 50mm lens got stolen a while back. If the tank isn't big I just use the 100 macro.

 

[10" Red Devil]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10874958#post10874958 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gregr
I've got the older non-IS version of the 70-200 and it's optically the equivalent of the newer version.
If you're looking to save money you could go with a standard 50mm prime lens- they focus fairly close (though not like a macro lens) and are very sharp. If you are thinking of getting the 100mm macro lens... do it If the tank is big I'll use either a 17-40 or 24-105 since my 50mm lens got stolen a while back. If the tank isn't big I just use the 100 macro.

It is actually a very small tank. Only 14 gallons. I really do not want to dish out almost $2K for a nice front tank shot. I do want to do some macro, but Im sure I could always get a extension tube for my 100-400EF L zoom lens for that purpose.

 

[gregr]

I've got that lens and use it with extension tubes for dragonfly type photos. For aquarium close-ups you'll find it kind of difficult. You definitely don't need to spend $2k for a lens to get the kind of shot you're looking for. A standard 50mm lens, or even the 50mm macro lens is well under $300 and will get you super sharp full tank shots. The 100mm macro would be ideal for your needs but it's $470 roughly.

 

[10" Red Devil]

Is there a sigma alternative to the canon lenses mentioned by any chance?

 

[gregr]

Yes, and Sigma is making excellent lenses these days. In the past, like maybe 5-10 years ago, Sigma had some real problems with quality and quality control and even customer service but in the last few years they've completely reversed their status. Now they have lenses that in some cases are better than the first party equivalents. Look up Sigma macro lenses with EOS mount. With a tank as small as yours a macro lens that would be good for coral close-ups will also work well for your full tank shots. Something like this or this would do ya fine.

 

[10" Red Devil]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11095588#post11095588 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gregr
Yes, and Sigma is making excellent lenses these days. In the past, like maybe 5-10 years ago, Sigma had some real problems with quality and quality control and even customer service but in the last few years they've completely reversed their status. Now they have lenses that in some cases are better than the first party equivalents. Look up Sigma macro lenses with EOS mount. With a tank as small as yours a macro lens that would be good for coral close-ups will also work well for your full tank shots. Something like this or this would do ya fine.

How is the sigma 105mm macro in comparison to the Canon 100mm macro? Their seems to be about a $100 price difference which is not that much more if it is quite a bit better.

I will also use this for butterfly, moth, insect, mushroom photography.

Do you have any experience in that arena? Do you think those macro ring flashes are worthwhile? Right now I have a 480EX flash.

Thanks.

 

[clippo]

with about 5 feet of space in front of it, I can just about fit my 32" long tank in the frame using a Canon 50mm f1.8mkII (with an APS-C sensor). Being a prime, it's a sharp lens and fast too opening up to f2.8. Dead cheap also.

Sigma macro is a decent lens - also the Tamron 90mm. I don't think macro ring flashes are any use for aquarium stuff.

 

[10" Red Devil]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11095904#post11095904 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by clippo
with about 5 feet of space in front of it, I can just about fit my 32" long tank in the frame using a Canon 50mm f1.8mkII (with an APS-C sensor). Being a prime, it's a sharp lens and fast too opening up to f2.8. Dead cheap also.

Sigma macro is a decent lens - also the Tamron 90mm. I don't think macro ring flashes are any use for aquarium stuff.

Yeah I was wondering about the macro ring for other types of macro photography.

Thanks for your opinion!