# Would you get this lens?



## sumer (Feb 6, 2010)

Depends on your budget.
Assuming that you have a kit lens (18-55 mm), you have many options.
Option 1: Macro filters. They cost anywhere from $10 to $30. They are decent solutions and are enough to let you explore and decide if you actually like macro photography.

Option 2: Extension tubes. Manual extension tubes are pretty inexpensive and let you go pretty close to the subject. Again a decent solution to let you explore.

Option 3: Reversal ring. They are not more than $10 or so. A very cheap option.

Then if your budget allows, you can go for a sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm or Canon 60mm. They all will cost at least $450+
I used macro filters for years before buying a canon 100mm.


----------



## mistuhmarc (Oct 1, 2013)

sumer said:


> Depends on your budget.
> Assuming that you have a kit lens (18-55 mm), you have many options.
> Option 1: Macro filters. They cost anywhere from $10 to $30. They are decent solutions and are enough to let you explore and decide if you actually like macro photography.
> 
> ...


Thanks for letting me know! I was searching sites for hours trying to decide what to buy. But now that I know that, I'll go for one of those lens kits for my 18-55mm lens coming in soon. 

I'm also getting a 55-200mm lens from another student at my University. I'm actually pretty excited about this camera. :bounce:


----------



## sumer (Feb 6, 2010)

mistuhmarc said:


> I'm also getting a 55-200mm lens from another student at my University. I'm actually pretty excited about this camera. :bounce:


I think you meant 55-250mm. 
So a typical sequence of lenses after getting your first DSLR goes like this: 
18-55mm kit lens > 50mm f/1.8 > 55-250mm or 70-300mm 
And by then, you pretty much know what you want to do and so you buy specialty lenses like a macro lens or maybe a wide angle or even a fish eye.. If the 55-250 would entertain you the most, you will go fpr 100-400mm or maybe 150-600mm.

I'd suggest you to buy a 50mm f/1.8 next. It's a very inexpensive lens (in comparison to other lenses). You can find a decent piece for $50-60 on [Ebay Link Removed]
It goes a long way. I still use the one I bought in 2007 and it still is razor sharp. 

And most important of all: Do not forget to have fun. Take lots of pictures.. experiment.. post them here or on other photo sharing websites for critique.. Don't hesitate to ask questions.. read a lot about all the settings and functions in your camera.. learn to "compose" a photo..
I love new beginnings.


----------



## mistuhmarc (Oct 1, 2013)

sumer said:


> I think you meant 55-250mm.
> So a typical sequence of lenses after getting your first DSLR goes like this:
> 18-55mm kit lens > 50mm f/1.8 > 55-250mm or 70-300mm
> And by then, you pretty much know what you want to do and so you buy specialty lenses like a macro lens or maybe a wide angle or even a fish eye.. If the 55-250 would entertain you the most, you will go fpr 100-400mm or maybe 150-600mm.
> ...


My mistake, I do mean that lens. I'm currently bidding on a 50mm f/1.8 lens as well as buying a macro lens kit from Amazon to try out macros. In pertaining to shots, what's a good setting to take pictures of the tank, as well as close ups? I'm going to read the sticky thread here as well to get some more tips.


----------



## sumer (Feb 6, 2010)

mistuhmarc said:


> In pertaining to shots, what's a good setting to take pictures of the tank, as well as close ups?


No one is telling you that.. because there is no "good" setting. Everything depends on what kind of light is available on your subject and what kind of shots you want to take.
Try out all the settings and see what you like the best.


----------



## Powerclown (Aug 17, 2014)

That is true, it depends on the light in the tank,the light in the room.All the camaras have different settings, ( nikon,canon,bla bla whatever)
You need to play around with the settings and pic one for your liking. 
cheers


----------



## mistuhmarc (Oct 1, 2013)

sumer said:


> No one is telling you that.. because there is no "good" setting. Everything depends on what kind of light is available on your subject and what kind of shots you want to take.
> Try out all the settings and see what you like the best.





Powerclown said:


> That is true, it depends on the light in the tank,the light in the room.All the camaras have different settings, ( nikon,canon,bla bla whatever)
> You need to play around with the settings and pic one for your liking.
> cheers


That makes sense, I guess I will learn about that on my own as I continue to try and play around with the settings on my camera. Sort of getting used to learning how to work with my camera.


----------



## MoreyFan (Jul 3, 2014)

If you only want to take macro shots there is no need to have some beginning progression of lens purchases with a prime telephoto 50mm 1.8. I use my DSLR for portraits, macro and sports. So I have a 70-200mm L and the 100mm macro L. I don't have a walk around lens or all around lens because I use smaller cameras for that.


The great part about a camera that can take a different lens is that you only buy the lens you need.


----------



## mistuhmarc (Oct 1, 2013)

sumer said:


> No one is telling you that.. because there is no "good" setting. Everything depends on what kind of light is available on your subject and what kind of shots you want to take.
> Try out all the settings and see what you like the best.





MoreyFan said:


> If you only want to take macro shots there is no need to have some beginning progression of lens purchases with a prime telephoto 50mm 1.8. I use my DSLR for portraits, macro and sports. So I have a 70-200mm L and the 100mm macro L. I don't have a walk around lens or all around lens because I use smaller cameras for that.
> 
> 
> The great part about a camera that can take a different lens is that you only buy the lens you need.


While I do want to use my camera for macros mainly, a couple of other lenses would work for when I do want to use it for other events when I go out with the girlfriend, or when I have a family meeting. It would be nice to have a different lens for these situations.


----------



## MoreyFan (Jul 3, 2014)

mistuhmarc said:


> when I go out with the girlfriend, or when I have a family meeting. It would be nice to have a different lens for these situations.


Those both sound like group photos and a 50mm on a APS-C sensor camera would be a bad choice IMO. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is also horrible for macro with a maximum magnification of .15x. The free kit lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) has a mm of .34x and is good for group photos. Do you have this lens?


----------



## sumer (Feb 6, 2010)

mistuhmarc said:


> when I go out with the girlfriend, or when I have a family meeting. It would be nice to have a different lens for these situations.


Believe me, a 50mm 1.8 would make your girlfriend love you triple as she does now. A good photo can make any girl's day 
Don't you worry about all the technicalities and the numbers or fractions. Once you have the camera and a couple of lenses to play with, you can win the world. 
Don't forget, 50mm 1.8 on a $5 reversal ring can beat the bling of any L macro out there.


----------



## mistuhmarc (Oct 1, 2013)

MoreyFan said:


> Those both sound like group photos and a 50mm on a APS-C sensor camera would be a bad choice IMO. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is also horrible for macro with a maximum magnification of .15x. The free kit lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) has a mm of .34x and is good for group photos. Do you have this lens?



I've done some research on the lenses to see what they're used for. The 55-250mm lens can be good for telephotos while the 50mm is a prime lens. Don't get me wrong, I understand the 50mm might not be good for these kinds of photos, but it should be better for some nice photos in general.



sumer said:


> Believe me, a 50mm 1.8 would make your girlfriend love you triple as she does now. A good photo can make any girl's day
> 
> Don't you worry about all the technicalities and the numbers or fractions. Once you have the camera and a couple of lenses to play with, you can win the world.
> 
> Don't forget, 50mm 1.8 on a $5 reversal ring can beat the bling of any L macro out there.



I'm starting to understand apertures, ISO, and shutter speed a little more, so I'm hoping to work on that more in the future. What I didn't know was that you could use a reversal ring on a 50mm to turn it into a macro lens. While it can't use autofocus, it'd be great for manual focusing.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

For macro you should get a 50 mm prime lens or a 100 mm prime lens (lens that can't zoom in). Probably the 50 mm is your best bet since you can use it for general photography. You also need an external flash or strobe to take proper photos.

I use the 100 mm 2.8F Canon lens, AQUASAUR on APC uses these two lenses EF 50 mm/f2.5 Compact-Macro and EF 50 mm. f/1.8 II. We both use 580EXII flash.

One of my Photos:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/photography/80608-betta-fish-photo.html

AQUASAUR's photos here, he has a lot of entries in the photography section:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/photography/61081-some-others-my-labyrinth-fishes.html


----------



## MoreyFan (Jul 3, 2014)

Zapins said:


> For macro you should get a 50 mm prime lens or a 100 mm prime lens (lens that can't zoom in). Probably the 50 mm is your best bet since you can use it for general photography.


50mm prime for macro pictures? I just gave the exact opposite advice so I am curious why you would suggest a lens with a mm of .15x for macro pictures.



mistuhmarc said:


> I've done some research on the lenses to see what they're used for. The 55-250mm lens can be good for telephotos while the 50mm is a prime lens. Don't get me wrong, I understand the 50mm might not be good for these kinds of photos, but it should be better for some nice photos in general.


On a crop sensor camera it would be good for single person portraits. Your uses suggested group or dinner photos.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

MoreyFan said:


> 50mm prime for macro pictures? I just gave the exact opposite advice so I am curious why you would suggest a lens with a mm of .15x for macro pictures.


I didn't really read through the other replies when I posted.

I recommend the 50 mm macro lens for a couple of reasons. Mainly because of AQUASAUR's amazing photographs in that thread I linked to (and others). Also, when using my 100mm macro lens I've often found that it is far too zoomed in for fish tank use. It is great for taking photos of tiny shrimp, or maybe a fish's eye and head but for proper full sized portraits you need to be far away from the glass to get the entire fish in the photo and that makes it difficult to hold and angle the flash above the tank. It isn't impossible, but definitely not very practical and easy.

The only thing the 50 mm macro lens gives you that the 100 mm doesn't is a wider angle, so you can get closer to your subject and still have the entire fish's body in the frame. The detail should be the same. More magnification doesn't = higher quality macro photos.

I've been thinking about selling my 24-105 lens and buying a 50 mm macro lens instead for quite some time. It would make tank photographs much easier.


----------



## MoreyFan (Jul 3, 2014)

Zapins said:


> I didn't really read through the other replies when I posted.


Sorry I didn't realize you were talking about the 50mm f/2.5. There was discussion about the 50mm f/1.8 in the thread. 

I completely agree that the 50mm f/2.5 is better macro especially on a crop sensor like the OP has. 


To the OP, the 50mm f/1.8 has a maximum magnification of .15x while the 50mm f/2.5 Zapins is talking about has a maximum magnification of .50x. Huge difference.


----------



## Bettatail (Feb 12, 2009)

do you want to put that fish 1:1 to the length of the camera sensor? 

if not, a telephoto lens will get the job done well for taking big picture of a small fish.
the best investment are a couple remote flashes, transmitter and receivers, they will provide the most important element for taking big picture of small objects--light.

good light means more detail that the sensor can receive, and you can crop to a tiny area of original picture because the resolution are so high on the sensors of todays DSLRs...

my 180mm true macro Tamron lens, the 1:1 is about a foot and half minimum focal distant from the object to the front of the lens, but I barely go that close when taking pictures for fish.
and if I stand three foot away(from the object to the front of the lens), the Tamron is only acting as a telephoto lens, and any 150mm telephoto lens work the same as the Tamron Macro....

example, picture of an oto, I took the picture with 180mm Tamron macro but 3 feet away, and any telephoto lens a little bit less than 180mm, normally have a minimum focal distant around 3 feet, means the same picture can be achieved with a telephoto lens.









and this is the result of cropping, small fish but big picture!
good light is a must because more light, better detail, and sharper image.










good for cropping.


----------

