This might be a stoopid noobie question, but what camera lenses do you folks usually use to take full tank pictures?
I ask because I'm about to buy a Canon T2i body, and really have no idea what lenses to get. Obviously, I want to photograph our tanks and fish, but I probably also want a macro lens so I can photograph flowers close-up, and perhaps a general purpose lens for the kids and nature shots.
In another thread, Mary raved about the Nikkor 18-200 lens, and Canon appears to have an equivalent that gets good reviews as a general purpose lens - would it work well for full tank shots, or do I need something special?
Lenses for photographing tanks
-
chris_todd
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:05 pm
- Location: Catonsville
-
Rick Dotson
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:43 am
- Location: United States
Good lighting for your tank can go a long way. Having a fast lens will help a lot too. The closer to f/1.4 the better. Canon makes a really good nifty 50 for around $90 that's f/1.8 that would work on the T2i. If you have the money, a Canon or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 would be even better. It's a great walkaround lens and perfect for portraits. Both have beautiful bokeh.
The turtle guy - I don't do water changes.
29-gallon NPT w/texas map turtle and swimming/planted turtle food
10-gallon NPT w/koi angels, neon tetras, ghost shrimp, ramshorns
3.5-gallon NPT w/harlequin rasboras, RCS, ramshorns
29-gallon NPT w/texas map turtle and swimming/planted turtle food
10-gallon NPT w/koi angels, neon tetras, ghost shrimp, ramshorns
3.5-gallon NPT w/harlequin rasboras, RCS, ramshorns
-
marydotson
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:43 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
I think it really depends. In general, tank shots aren't too fussy. The 18-200 is great as an all round lens for all kinds of non-tank shooting scenarios, but it isn't necessarily my preferred lens for tank shots. I would agree with Kevin, but with one proviso--if the 18-200 lens is what you really want for other shooting, and price is not a barrier, by all means get it.
The only lens I would avoid for tank shots (especially for competitions) are extra-wide angle lenses. If you read Amano's commentary on tanks, he always criticizes tanks shot like this (because it generates a false sense of spaciousness that isn't actually in the tank). I think the result is that all judges now are on the lookout for this kind of shot and dock it accordingly.
One thing you might want to do is rent gear to try before you buy. If you rent from Penn Camera, I think they will credit the rental amount to purchase--and if you rent on a Friday, you don't have to return it until the weekends over.
BTW--Rick has got into the aspect I do find a pain. I'm not really happy about getting lighting right, especially on one tank where if I get one leaf's color correct, all the other plants in the tank look like they are from Mars. I have gotten better results using external flashes (where I know the color range of the units)--but setup (mounting on stands, arranging remote triggers) is tiresome, to say the least.
The only lens I would avoid for tank shots (especially for competitions) are extra-wide angle lenses. If you read Amano's commentary on tanks, he always criticizes tanks shot like this (because it generates a false sense of spaciousness that isn't actually in the tank). I think the result is that all judges now are on the lookout for this kind of shot and dock it accordingly.
One thing you might want to do is rent gear to try before you buy. If you rent from Penn Camera, I think they will credit the rental amount to purchase--and if you rent on a Friday, you don't have to return it until the weekends over.
BTW--Rick has got into the aspect I do find a pain. I'm not really happy about getting lighting right, especially on one tank where if I get one leaf's color correct, all the other plants in the tank look like they are from Mars. I have gotten better results using external flashes (where I know the color range of the units)--but setup (mounting on stands, arranging remote triggers) is tiresome, to say the least.
I definitely have seen a difference in lenses, but agree that lighting is the number 1 thing. Beyond that, having a body that produces low noise at higher ISOs also helps. The "nifty 50" is a great lens for the money, but in general, if I'm taking a full tank shot, I don't want to shoot at f/1.8, particularly in larger tanks, as the image won't be sharp from front to back. That's where the lighting, combined with higher ISO to buy any extra stop or two comes in...
I just reread Chris' original post, and realized that I didn't help much... Chris, in the Canon line, a great all-round lens is the 17-85mm. It's not the sharpest lens in their line, but still produces nice shots, and gives you a reasonable range of zoom. I haven't used their equivalent of the 18-200, so I can't comment there. If you want a step up from the 17-85mm lens, including the cost and weight associated, my go-to lens is the 24-70mm which is from their L-series.
For macro, Canon's 100mm f/2.8 lens is fantastic for the money.
For macro, Canon's 100mm f/2.8 lens is fantastic for the money.
