Farid is right(ish). You need a camera body that is good enough. It can be replaced at a later stage with a new, better (possibly more expensive), but the low-end camera bodies are great - they may not have ALL the features of the "bigger" models, but they are fine for fish-photos (unless you are trying to get a good sequence-shot of a jumping arowana or salmon, but neither of those are catfish!).
The lens is definitely one of the most important parts of an SLR system - and, as I stated earlier, can sometimes cost more than the camera itself.
A lens meant for Macro photography is indeed a necessity if you want to take photos of fry, details of larger fish etc. A 100 or 105 mm Macro lens is definitely what most people use.
However, the 18-55 lens that comes in most manufacturers kits isn't bad. It's usually pretty good close-up range, and at 55mm it would be capable of getting a reasonable picture of a 1-2" fish. I don't know if Jools has bought any new lens(es) since he got the EOS 350D several years ago, with the 18-55. And I'm sure you all will agree that Jools images in the Cat-eLog are not bad.
One picked at random:
Not a large fish by any means (unless it's a Monster bloodworm!)
Again, as I stated earlier, you can test the close-up capabilities by taking a photo of a coin or similar, and use the "drop the keys" test to see if the camera is "fast reacting" [make sure you focus FIRST] (I don't think any SLR will have a problem with the "drop keys" test).
What I'm trying to say is that there is an ideal setup, and there is a setup that works OK. And many more in between. And there are many variants that, although being both expensive and good in other aspects, won't work for fish-photos (for example, a 180mm Macro lens that costs about $1000, would probably not be very useful for most people, as it's best for slightly further away shots).
all such great info I appreciate it. Tana, thanks for the offer and links, the first one doesn't work but second does. Farid thanks for your links as well.
Definitely good advice on the lens. I'm still budgeting for a set of lenses since I got the 28-55 kit lens with the Nikon D5000. Any Nikon folks who want to make recommends on a couple of decent lenses which aren't going to break the bank? I'm not an expert level user, so manual lenses are out, and I really like the VR lenses because of my shaky hands.
I'd say the Nikkor 105/2.8 Macro or Sigma EX 105/2.8 Macro (Note that EX Sigma lenses are much better than the "cheap" Sigma lenses, EX is similar to the "L" that Canon use for their higher end lenses - I'm sure Nikon has similar labels, but not sure what they call it).
Beyond that, it's a case of "what do you want the lens for"...
Fast zoom lenses -> $$$$. 24-70/2.8 for Canon is about $1500 (from memory), and a similar amount for the 70-200/2.8L IS USM. I'm pretty certain that Nikons lenses are are roughly the same price.
There are some nice Sigma EX 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 for about half the Nikon price (from looking at B&H Photo website, I haven't looked up any reviews etc).
From what I've read about Sigma's EX lenses, they are good value for money.
You can also post to the forum and see image updates and so on as they happen by subscribing to the RSS feed!
When you're finished your 876 things on the PC to-do list, are you still going to do up an RSS How-to article or did I miss it somewhere?
It's in the general articles section. Click on "cool" above and then "articles about the site". I would welcome feedback on it as I wrote it a long time ago.
hi again
one more thing about the macro lenses itself:
comparing the NIkon (as i only used nikon and leicas until now...)
the differences between the 200mm/f 4.0 the 105mm/f2.8 and the 60mm/f2.8 is apart vfrom the 4.0 in the 200mm lens only the distance to the object that changes...
the apeared size of the object will be the same...that means that with the 200mm lens you might have about 3ft as a minimum focus distance
the 105mm has about 1ft and the 60mm about 3" ...so the question is now (of course the depth sharpness will be harder to get with the 200mm lens as this goes as tele lens...meaning that the object will apear at the same size as it would be shot with a 60mm lens ...BUT 60mm is far less than 200mm if you look at the angle and the amount of what you will see through the lens. all three lenses are macro lenses but to get a shy fish or insect i will for sure not go for the 60mm, better will be the 105mm or even 200mm...
then according to the distance you have to approach with a 60mm lens until you reach the maximum appearance of your object you have to go that close...that the creature will flee while you adjust your focus...
so i choose the 105mm that gives me the same appearance but from a bigger distance to the animal...now you have time to check everything until you push the Button ;) i hope you get the point?
make sure if you buy a lens that it features all requirements in use for the new digital bodies...as old lenses have missing contact for some measuring functions...but that does not mean you cant take photos with it. i still use my old 50mm/1,4 manual on my digicams..
using zoom lenses can cause the need of a changement of the settings. if the aperature is at 2.8 and it says only for example 35mm-70mm/2.8 then the light metering will stay the same (shutterspeeds or aperature ) on lenses with a aperature that maybe says 150-300/f3,5-5,6 means that in the wideangle range the camera will work with f3.5...soon as you zoom into the tele range the aperature will change the more you zoom in. why? at a wideangle position there will be more light reaching the light sensor (position of the lenses inside and size of the lens body. soon as you zoom in the leny bode usually gets longer the light channel also gets longer...the less light will reach the light sensor...now the camera uses the second aperature ...which is f5.6 ...the problem with this 5.6 setting is...in low light situations these 5.6 causes longer shutterspeeds as it needs more time to let the same amount of light in as it would with more light and faster shutterspeeds...thats why lenses with a single aperature "size" are more expensive, because lowlight light situations can still be managed...in other words ...while you take a picture with a 1/60sec shutterspeed combined with a 2.8 lens, the 5.6 lens will have two times the longer shutterspeed which means it will be 1/15sec...if you manage to hold our camera using the 1/15 setting it might get unsharp (or need a tripod)...with the 2.8 lens you will not have any problems taking this shot sharp!
also using the same shutterspeed as the 5.6 has...like the 1/15th of a second...you can also reach this setting with the 2.8 lens by closing the aperature two steps ...means ...from 1/60-> 1/30-> 1/15! not you will have the same shutterspeed BUT your depth sharpness is already larger then at the 5.6 lens...as 5.6 is it's basic aperature...so check the internet for 2.8 lenses...there's also 1,8 or 1.4 lenses but to buy these i would not even think of as i can't really afford it.
getting another cheaper version of a lens
many people go for sigma or tamron...also check tokina which i think would be the best solution if you compare the quality (a light lens out of plastic has not really a good quality...) http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/index.html
Nikons new VR lenses... http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... .htm#micro
these lenses have a built in motor that is so silent you almost not hear it. and the focus is quite fast!! you can let the camera focus on something...during the AF you can anytime grad the focus ring and do manual adjustements without changing any switches or buttons...of course you also have the manual focus function.
nikon and canon i guess also have the continour focus function...so when you got a moving object, the camera will follow the object and refocuses nonstop so you can push the butten anytime and if the light and the speed allows it the pic will always be sharp (i never tried with fishes...
i actually got my 105mm VR lens sent over from the states...as it is cheaper for me ordering things like that from the US...900$ is not the world and it would make you happy
You are (of course) right that the image you get from a 200mm or 180mm macro lens looks pretty much the same as a from a 100/105 or 60/55mm macro lens. But you need more space to use a 180 or 200mm lens. Even my 100mm macro is a bit "long" at times - but yes, getting too close to the fishes (and even more so, insects) can be difficult. It's a compromise. And it very much depends on how much space there is around the tanks. I think of my fishroom when discussing fish photography. The fishroom is quite crowded - it's less than 3ft/90cm from the front glass of rack1 to front glass on the opposite rack2.
hi mats,
then i would also recommend a 55/60mm lens... if you combine the 60mm with different tubes the distance will stay more or less the same maybe a bit smaller, and the apprearance will get much bigger (stronger macro) these are easy ways to get very hard core close ups of things you goot a chance to go close! better a tube than a "macro lens" (single lens) to screw on top of your objectiv...
If I was buying a Macro lens right now, I would probably go for a EF-S 60/2.8, yes. Unfortunately, I can't motivate spending the money on a new lens that doesn't actually give me THAT much more than I already have - I'd rather spend the money on a lens that gives me more - Sigma 10-20 or Canon 11-22 would be nice to have (and they have reasonable close-up range, which my current 20-35/2.8L doesn't have).
I still think that a 100mm (or 105mm) Macro is pretty good compromise between "close" and "far away" macro photography.
An extension tube is a very low-cost way to get more close-up range for any SLR camera. For those not familiar with this concept, it's essentially just a "piece of pipe" with suitable connectors to attach to the camera on one side and the lens on the other. It moves the focus point of the lens closer to the camera - so you can get closer to the subject than you could with the lens without the extension tube. This, along with a off-camera flash cord is on my wish-list for camera stuff. Unfortunately, I tend to spend far too much money on fish and their upkeep to get much left for cameras and related stuff...
all of them are taken with a little digital cam and external flashlight...(TTL cord)
rhinoshrimp
Corydoras cruziensis
4cm Sturisoma festivum
Pristella maxillaris
L397 male
as you see it does not take a huge monster cam to take aceprable shots...but the external TTL cord and flashlight is just a good thing not to get any reflextion (as flashed from the top!) the cam has also a built in flashlight!
hi peter,
the explanation might be good...but i dont really like the final picture if you compare where it comes from...
i guess the whitebalance of the main photo was just wrong before even taking the shot (too yellow) if the flashlight is set well the colours should appear as they are...strong sharp and real...colouring e blue eye even more blue is (i think) just wrong...
of course the effect is good and special but not original animore.
in all of my pics the only thing i did was to sharpen the image and resize it to a smaller file...
i like it real...this is what makes good photography in my point of view...
