Which Lens

[doubledee]

Hi,

I've had a SLR Minolta for years but it's been in the drawer gathering dust. I decided to go for a DSLR and initially was going to go for the Sony A100 as it is compatible with my old Minolta lenses. As it turned out, it was only compatible with one and although it's supposed to be a really good camera for the money, I decided on either a Canon 400D or Nikon D80. I plumped for the 400D and as I managed to save a few £££'s I got some other lenses and accessories for it. However, I didn't get a macro lens and am debating whether to get one or not. I suppose for photograhing aquariums and fish, it's a necessity. I just wondered if anyone was using their kit lens for photographing their fish or whether I need to shell out some more £££'s on another lens?

TIA

 

[Bloo]

Which lens did you get with the 400D? I've manged to get some great shots with my kit lens (with the 30D) on Macro - 17-85mm. Unless you're also going to splash out on additional lighting / flash etc. I probably wouldn't bother with the macro (if it's only for the fish you want it).
I have the Canon macro lens too, but can't say I use it much.

 

[doubledee]

I got the 18-55mm standard Canon lens which is supposedly not up to much. I got the camera from the canon store on ebay, so saved a few quid. I don't know if they'll give me £50 cashback as it's a refurbished model! I also bought a 50mm prime lens as that was one of my most used lenses on my trusty Minolta. I was looking at either getting a Tamron 18-55 or Sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens but I will save up a few more ££ first as I've bought grips, batteries, memory cards etc. etc. The Sigma is also a macro but I was looking at an actual macro lens from either Sigma or Tamron. As you say, it's probably not worth it just for fish phots.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I got a really nice Pentax 50mm f/1.4 yesterday. It has a good closeup focusing range and the 1.4 aperture allows for some really fast shutter speeds even in the dark. I haven't used it to photograph my fish yet. How fast is the aperture on the 50mm you got for your Canon? You can probably get some good shots with that.

I also got some good shots of my tank with the kit lens that came with my DSLR, (I got the Pentax K10D). I've been generally quite happy with the quality of the shots I've been able to get so far. It's only limitation for me yet is the moderately slow aperture in low light settings. I've heard that Canon kit lenses aren't usually very good, but your 50mm will likely do the trick nicely.

SLC

 

[Bloo]

I got the 18-55mm standard Canon lens which is supposedly not up to much. I got the camera from the canon store on ebay, so saved a few quid. I don't know if they'll give me £50 cashback as it's a refurbished model! I also bought a 50mm prime lens as that was one of my most used lenses on my trusty Minolta. I was looking at either getting a Tamron 18-55 or Sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens but I will save up a few more ££ first as I've bought grips, batteries, memory cards etc. etc. The Sigma is also a macro but I was looking at an actual macro lens from either Sigma or Tamron. As you say, it's probably not worth it just for fish phots.

The Canon retail outlet on eBay is good Have a look at this guy's photography & kit - especially fish photography with his lenses and equipment and reviews. It will give you some ideas! TheTeh (and navigate to "Projects").

I've heard that Canon kit lenses aren't usually very good

What tosh. And that would be the reason that Canon is in the running with Market leaders?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I've heard that Canon kit lenses aren't usually very good

What tosh. And that would be the reason that Canon is in the running with Market leaders?

No no, you misunderstand my intention for that posting, I know that Canon L series lenses are among the best. They are some of the only apochromatic lenses available. However I've read review after review, and read personal testimonials on the photography forum that I frequent saying that they are not worth much. I've also not been impressed personally in the quality of the kit lenses I've handled myself.

Canon is among the front runners in the photography business because they have the most complete photographic system available. Nikon is close and Pentax, Minolta (Sony), and Olympus trail far behind, at least when it comes to equipment selection and availability.

SLC

 

[doubledee]

Thanks for the replies/links. I guess I'll have a play with the kit lens when it turns up. I have my eye on a couple of flebay at the moment.

 

[raptorrex]

Thanks for the replies/links. I guess I'll have a play with the kit lens when it turns up. I have my eye on a couple of flebay at the moment.

not sure on this but i think you can get what's called an extension ring, this will turn your 50mm lens into a real Macro lens. the rings should still maintain all camera functions. so, unless you want to, you will not need any fancy accessories. however a fast aperture is often a bad thing in a macro lens. giving you very little depth of field (area in focus). and also at these apertures the lens is far from working at its best. it does make for a bright image when focusing though.

 

[doubledee]

How fast is the aperture on the 50mm you got for your Canon? You can probably get some good shots with that.
<snip> I've heard that Canon kit lenses aren't usually very good, but your 50mm will likely do the trick nicely.

It's the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II that I bought, should be here tomorrow

not sure on this but i think you can get what's called an extension ring, this will turn your 50mm lens into a real Macro lens. the rings should still maintain all camera functions. so, unless you want to, you will not need any fancy accessories. however a fast aperture is often a bad thing in a macro lens. giving you very little depth of field (area in focus). and also at these apertures the lens is far from working at its best. it does make for a bright image when focusing though.

Funnily enough, I've been reading up on filters etc. and also came across a thread on a photographic forum saying the very same thing. I will look into the extension ring idea. I was outbid on a 17-70mm Sigma (with Macro, okay not true macro but prob good enough) tonight, I forgot about the auction until it was too late. I think I'll get a wide angle lens for landscapes and a macro at some point when the funds allow. The kit lens will have to do as a stop gap between the wide and my 70-300 IS zoom. I'm looking forward to getting back into photography. It certainly hasn't got any cheaper even with my 'budget' kit!!!

 

[raptorrex]

How fast is the aperture on the 50mm you got for your Canon? You can probably get some good shots with that.
<snip> I've heard that Canon kit lenses aren't usually very good, but your 50mm will likely do the trick nicely.

It's the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II that I bought, should be here tomorrow

not sure on this but i think you can get what's called an extension ring, this will turn your 50mm lens into a real Macro lens. the rings should still maintain all camera functions. so, unless you want to, you will not need any fancy accessories. however a fast aperture is often a bad thing in a macro lens. giving you very little depth of field (area in focus). and also at these apertures the lens is far from working at its best. it does make for a bright image when focusing though.

Funnily enough, I've been reading up on filters etc. and also came across a thread on a photographic forum saying the very same thing. I will look into the extension ring idea. I was outbid on a 17-70mm Sigma (with Macro, okay not true macro but prob good enough) tonight, I forgot about the auction until it was too late. I think I'll get a wide angle lens for landscapes and a macro at some point when the funds allow. The kit lens will have to do as a stop gap between the wide and my 70-300 IS zoom. I'm looking forward to getting back into photography. It certainly hasn't got any cheaper even with my 'budget' kit!!!

lol a "25" extension ring comes out between £80-130 this will give you 1/2 life size on the ccd. you mentioned, screw in filters, these are a fair "stop gap", but even a cheap zoom lens will far exceed the quality they give. There is one type that i think is a good idea for a fish photographer. its called a "split field" filter, allowing you to get both close up foreground and background in focus at the same time. http/www.photographers.co.uk/html/photographic-filters.cfm
and i found this PDF with some interesting information on filters in general, perhaps it may be of help to someone.
http/www.cokin.co.uk/pdf/B026-A.pdf

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'm not claiming that the 50mm can be used as a macro lens, just so that's clear. However you'll find using a macro lens on a DSLR for shooting fast moving fish to be quite a chore. I am suggesting that the canon 50mm f/1.8 will be useful for reasonably close shots and that your cropping tool on you photo editing software will do the rest. Bobbyboy is right when he states that at the larger apertures the lens will not be as sharp as it is at smaller ones. But mine is still quite sharp at f/1.4, not perfect but certainly acceptable for personal use. I can get about 1 foot from the subject and just crop in closer later. Perhaps I should post an example?

Faster apertures will allow you to speed up your shutter speed, a necessity in my experience for catching clear shots of moving fish.

SLC

 

[raptorrex]

Faster apertures will allow you to speed up your shutter speed, a necessity in my experience for catching clear shots of moving fish.

SLC

indeed quite true, however if yo are using an extension tube, or close up filters, you will suffer badly with quality loss @ 1.8 in comparison to say 2.8 or 3.5. also the depth of field @ 1.8 is also a problem. lol like having fish that don't move, but only getting the fin in focus, or the head and not the body. though this is not so much a problem working with the lens at its normal operating distance. there is a reason all true Macro lenses have small, ish, apertures. in comparison to their standard focus counterparts.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Yes you are correct but I've found that when working with macro lenses ANY movement; be it movement of the photographers hands or movement of the subject will cause severe problems. Also trying to focus on an object that is constantly moving is nearly impossible with a macro lens. This is why I use a faster aperture and shutter speed as I mentioned above.

SLC

 

[doubledee]

Darn camera has something under the LCD so it's going back. As I got on canon's ebay site, they'll take it back no probs but if I want another, I have to bid again! I'm not taking any chances and going for a brand new body only as I didn't like the look of the kit lens, very cheap and plasticky. So, I ordered a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which should be better. Buying it from HK from onestop-digital who I've bought from before and are a lot cheaper than any UK retailer. I bought a grip for it the other day, only to see a really good deal with the grip almost thrown in for nowt!!!! I must have a phD in hindsight.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Good luck and good decision going for the tamron, f/2.8 will help with shooting your fish too. How much will the new lens cost if I may ask? usually zooms with a constant max aperture are quite expensive. It's more common to see things like f/2.8-4.0 where the max aperture changes as you zoom.

SLC