105mm vs. 150mm MACRO lens?

[Sailfish]

Hi!

 

As I read around it seems like 100mm-150mm is the focal range commonly used for macro photography by reefers.

I'm looking for opinions on how the ability to take handheld pictures of fish (lower focal length is preferred) affects the possibilities of photographing corals, using a tripod (higher focal length is preferred).

 

Basically I'm wondering how much more difficult it is to use a 150mm Macro lens to take fish photos, compared to a 105mm?

[Lalani]

Between the 105mm and 150mm, I wouldn't think there would be a huge difference in the ability to take fish photos since they are both considered long macro lenses. Shorter macro lenses (up to around 60mm) are lighter, less bulky, easier to maneuver, and produce less camera shake. I think a couple of the guys here have used both and would be able to shed more light on the comparison.

 

HTH

[Veng]

Honestly, over a fish tank, you will be unlikely to be able to hand hold any macro lens for a quality photo. Maybe a 60mm 1:1. A 50mm 1:2 (not a "true" macro as it is 1/2 instead of 1:1 mag) you would probably hand hold because the difference in effective apertures. You could probably hand hold the 100m F/2.8L IS because of the 4 stops of image stabilization, however the fish will not sit still, so the IS doesn't help if the subject moves, it only stops you from moving.

 

I'm not sure why you want a macro lens for fish though. a 1:3 mag would probably be enough for most fish, especially if you crop the image a little.

 

As far as what macro I'd be shooting if money was no limit, it would probably be the Canon EF 180mm for the extra focal distance and bokeh. The increase in focal length means that 1:1 occurs at a farther distance from the camera sensor, which means you can get true 1:1 much deeper into the tank. This working distance is called minimum working distance and it's the minimum focus distance (object to sensor in camera) minus the length of the lens, so it's the distance from the end of the lens to your subject.

 

For canons

180mm = 9.5"

100mm = 6"

60mm = 3.5"

 

With a 20L, there is some corals in my tank that I can't reach 1:1 with my 100mm (it's also about 1/3rd the price of the 180mm, so I'll live with it. )

 

Now, I don't know what camera system you use, it sounds like Nikon from the 105mm comment in the title, but I'm not sure what the 150mm is, as I don't recall nikon having a 150mm.

 

I know the canon, rebel (entry DSLR) series is very commonly kitted with an EF-S 18-55mm lens that can do roughly 1:3, by far the best magnification of any non-macro lens and they are dirt cheap on the used market. I used one for a while and found it quite suitable. Most other lens are 1:4 or 1:5.

 

Also, don't ever expect to shoot at much under about F/8 at macro distances of coral unless you actually want razor thin depth of field. Here's two shots one at F/2.8 and the other at F/32 w/ the said 100mm macro. That's a roughly 1/2" circular plug. I don't think the F/2.8 got any post processing, the F/32 got some, so ignore those differences.

 

[05XRunner]

I have owned both the Sigma 150 Macro and the 105 Macro OS..it basically comes down to working distance. the 150 would benifit you more if you have a deeper tank to give yourself still a 1:1 magnification. A macro lens wouldnt be my first choice to photograph fish. as fish are fast moving subjects and macro lenses do not have the fastest focus system because of what they are ment for.

[Sailfish]

Sounds like you guys suggest that the longer the focal length, the better for coral macros.

For fish photo, maybe the cheap 50mm f1.8 would be a better choice, than any macro lens?

 

If the large apertures (f2.8, f3.5...) is rarely used, maybe a macro zoom lens would be something?

 

And yes, I'm a Nikon guy

[Withers]

The nifty fifty has a minimum focus distance of 1.5 feet, so it's not a great lens for taking pictures of anything relatively small. For big fish it would be fine, but not so great with nano fish. It's a good lens to have (or the sigma equivalent for you) regardless, I would recommend it just to try if nothing else. It put my 24-105 F/4L to shame on the last car photoshoot I did and that's a $1,000 lens.

 

"macro zoom" lenses are a myth as far as I'm concerned. You'd be better served putting those cheap macro rings on your normal lenses.

[markalot]

Have you thought about using a quality set of extension tubes rather than paying the big bucks for a macro lens? I purchased a nice set for $60 (they have the contacts to allow the electronics to get to the lens). I've used these with both the 18-55mm that comes with my Nikon and a 1.8 50mm portrait lens.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-CVAFN-Focus-Macro-Extension/dp/B003IVZVDO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1366811523&sr=1-1&keywords=nikon+extension+tube

 

Image examples:

 

http://imageshack.us/a/img834/3749/dsc0202edit.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img824/5366/dsc0204edit.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img199/9238/dsc0194edit.jpg

 

The negative, of course, is the reduced focal distance. Just something to consider. You will never approach the quality of a top end macro lens, but then again you might not need it.

 

Sounds like you guys suggest that the longer the focal length, the better for coral macros.

For fish photo, maybe the cheap 50mm f1.8 would be a better choice, than any macro lens?

 

If the large apertures (f2.8, f3.5...) is rarely used, maybe a macro zoom lens would be something?

 

And yes, I'm a Nikon guy

[Sailfish]

Ok, I understand. I will experiment with which lenses to use with fish photography. It is not my biggest priority anyway.

 

Yeah, I have seen examples of people using extension rings with great success. Maybe I'll buy that first and mount them between my future Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VRII lens and the D90 camera body. I'll see the results, and then think about maybe investing in a true macro lens.

 

Great pictures, by the way. Especially the first two!

[qualitycontrol]

Have you thought about using a quality set of extension tubes rather than paying the big bucks for a macro lens? I purchased a nice set for $60 (they have the contacts to allow the electronics to get to the lens). I've used these with both the 18-55mm that comes with my Nikon and a 1.8 50mm portrait lens.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-CVAFN-Focus-Macro-Extension/dp/B003IVZVDO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1366811523&sr=1-1&keywords=nikon+extension+tube

 

Image examples:

 

http://imageshack.us/a/img834/3749/dsc0202edit.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img824/5366/dsc0204edit.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img199/9238/dsc0194edit.jpg

 

The negative, of course, is the reduced focal distance. Just something to consider. You will never approach the quality of a top end macro lens, but then again you might not need it.

 

 

These images were taken with those extension tubes? I am trying to understand how they work.

[markalot]

These images were taken with those extension tubes? I am trying to understand how they work.

 

Yes, extension tubes with the kit lens.