Macro lens

[baio44]

I just got an Olympus E-450 DSLR and I'm looking to purchase a macro lens. I am a beginner and I'm looking to take basic good macro shots of my corals. What size is a safe bet? Not sure between 35mm, 60 and 100mm (and not sure difference). Going to the store tomorrow to learn more, but any thoughts would be helpful.

 

Jeff

[Pete Touhey]

I just got an Olympus E-450 DSLR and I'm looking to purchase a macro lens. I am a beginner and I'm looking to take basic good macro shots of my corals. What size is a safe bet? Not sure between 35mm, 60 and 100mm (and not sure difference). Going to the store tomorrow to learn more, but any thoughts would be helpful.

 

Jeff

 

 

I'm a long time Olympus user, currently have an E330 and E620. The best bang for the buck is the Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro. Though depending on your lighting might not be fast enough for handheld shots (the 450 doesn't have image stabilzation right?). It's very sharp and under $200. The Olympus 50mm f2 macro is an excellent lens, but runs in the $450 range. You'll have to go with Sigma if you want anything more powerful they've got nice 105mm and 150mm macro's that are very nice in the $500 and $700 range.

 

Of the above lenses I only have the 35mm macro, and can say it's as good as the reviews on the web say it is. Have you tried the kit lenses out? You might be surprised what you can do on the long telephoto end with sufficient distance.

 

You might also want to check other Photography sites, Dpreview is excellent.

 

Pete

[baio44]

So I ended buying the 35mm f3.5. The pics are looking good (not great), so I have some questions. I am turing off all powerheads and moving the subject to the front of the tank. Is there a good way to add lighting? How about a tripod since some of the images are blurry when enlarged. How do you guys take your macro shots?

I'll post some pics soon.

 

Thanks!

Jeff

[Jon Lazar]

For my macro shots I use a tripod and remote shutter release with pumps and powerheads off.

[ErikS]

So I ended buying the 35mm f3.5.

That's pretty slow (3.5). I don't know Oly cameras but how high can you bump the ISO? If you're trying to do fish (I know you said coral....but...) you'll need a fairly fast shutter speed & with that lens = a pretty high ISO.

 

You could possibly do a remote flash firing into the tank - that's a guess, have ZERO clue how effective it would be (never tried it)

 

And yes, fast glass ain't cheap................but it is very effective.

Edited October 14, 2010 by ErikS

[Dragon Eye]

That's pretty slow (3.5). I don't know Oly cameras but how high can you bump the ISO? If you're trying to do fish (I know you said coral....but...) you'll need a fairly fast shutter speed & with that lens = a pretty high ISO.

 

You could possibly do a remote flash firing into the tank - that's a guess, have ZERO clue how effective it would be (never tried it)

 

And yes, fast glass ain't cheap................but it is very effective.

 

 

This is wrong- High ISO will lead to very grainy photos of corals, there's also no need to use a flash. What you need is a low ISO and tripod to support a longer shutter speed. Personally I would of gone with the 100 mm macro- a 35 or 55 are better for portrait photos.

[ctenophore]

You should be able to make up for lens f-stop shortcomings with more light. Remote flash should help, so would a temporary additional metal halide in a good reflector. Practice with your lens on bugs or something in full sunlight at ISO 100, you should be able to set a very high shutter speed at f3.5 and get some crisp photos. Once you have that down, move to lower light tank shots. Some of the new cameras do well with higher ISO but you'll pay for that sensitivity with graininess no matter what.

 

These are things I've been doing to get better with the low end lenses that I have ("plastic fantastic" 50mm f1.8, 17-55mm kit lens) and I am starting to get good results but not as good as folks like Daniel (dshnarw) or gadgets who have more talent and better lenses.

 

We (Avast) will build another round of the inexpensive lens housings soon that enable good top-down shots with built-in flash. Pick up one of those and you won't have to deal with shooting through glass which always complicates things, or top-down bulb reflection.

[ErikS]

This is wrong- High ISO will lead to very grainy photos of corals, there's also no need to use a flash.

Wrong? LMAO - okay................lets start with there is no such thing as grain in a digital image - that would be called noise. Depending on the level of noise it can be removed in post process.

 

I don't know Oly cameras but how high can you bump the ISO?

Guess you missed that part - current cameras of other brands show little up to about 1600, on in the case Nikon's new D7000 6400. That's why I said I don't know Oly.

 

You could possibly do a remote flash firing into the tank - that's a guess, have ZERO clue how effective it would be (never tried it)

Guess you missed that part too - adding more light.

[Aaron]

I take a lot of photos, not a pro by any means mind you, but I'm not bad. It is definitely true that the higher quality DSLR cameras will shoot very, very effectively at high ISO with very little noise. I actually prefer to shoot that way rather than slowing down the shutter, or running a "fast" lense wide open. Running a lense wide open gives you absolutely no depth of field. Sure, you introduce a ton of light very quickly, but that's about it. That may be fine for some macro photography where you don't care about anything else in the frame (because there isn't anything else in the field of vision, which was the original topic), but for reef photography in general it definitely isn't _my_ preferred method (that doesn't necessarily make me right, and I am the first to admit it).

My camera will shoot very well all the way to ISO 3200, and 6400 is definitely usable (though noise does become apparent at 6400). I can do this anywhere between f/10-16 with a custom white balance setting, and run the shutter fast with no problem whatsoever.

 

In fairness I think it's really just two different strategies, both of which can be effective depending on the situation.

However, I think a lot of people buy really expensive fast glass because "expensive is better" or because they've been reading about that uber f/1.4 lense that will give the ultimate low-light capability, not realizing that at f/1.4, f/1.8, or heck pretty much until you hit f/5.6 (there is some wiggle room there) the point of focus is so small.

 

Here's an example - shot with Nikkor 50mm AF-D, ISO 3200, f/16, 1/125. Not the greatest photo in the world, but it is usable. Keep in mind this photo has been resized to 25% of its original resolution so that I could upload it.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Aaron

[Dragon Eye]

Eric S- Yes noise or grain equates to the same thing in the final product. Yes you can reduce some noise post processing, but why not just take a good quality photo the first time that shows the details you are searching for in coral and reef photos? There is no need for the use of flash in this application- you just need to know how to use your camera correctly and have the right settings- meter it if you prefer. In the Ocean, yes you may want a higher ISO and strobes, but we aren't in the ocean and you have all the time in the world sitting in front of your tank to get the photo you are looking for.

 

Aaron why not try the same photo again at a lower ISO- like 200. Then you probably won't have to say it's "usuable" shrunk down for the web but "not great". You may even be able to have a poster of it made then and capture all the details your looking for. FWIW My monitor is calibrated, so the photo to me looks to be a tad overdone in the color enhancement department.

[ctenophore]

Eric S- Yes noise or grain equates to the same thing in the final product. Yes you can reduce some noise post processing, but why not just take a good quality photo the first time that shows the details you are searching for in coral and reef photos? There is no need for the use of flash in this application- you just need to know how to use your camera correctly and have the right settings- meter it if you prefer. In the Ocean, yes you may want a higher ISO and strobes, but we aren't in the ocean and you have all the time in the world sitting in front of your tank to get the photo you are looking for.

 

Aaron why not try the same photo again at a lower ISO- like 200. Then you probably won't have to say it's "usuable" shrunk down for the web but "not great". You may even be able to have a poster of it made then and capture all the details your looking for. FWIW My monitor is calibrated, so the photo to me looks to be a tad overdone in the color enhancement department.

 

This is a great discussion and I'm learning a lot

 

However, with my D200 with that same lens, I can't imagine taking the above photo without flash at ISO 200, f/16, 1/125. It would be nearly black, there is just not nearly enough light even on a super high light tank to get that to come out. Can you take a photo of a similar subject (i.e., thru-the-glass reef tank) at those settings and post it? What other factors am I missing that would cause that photo to be correctly exposed?

[Aaron]

Eric S- Yes noise or grain equates to the same thing in the final product. Yes you can reduce some noise post processing, but why not just take a good quality photo the first time that shows the details you are searching for in coral and reef photos? There is no need for the use of flash in this application- you just need to know how to use your camera correctly and have the right settings- meter it if you prefer. In the Ocean, yes you may want a higher ISO and strobes, but we aren't in the ocean and you have all the time in the world sitting in front of your tank to get the photo you are looking for.

 

Aaron why not try the same photo again at a lower ISO- like 200. Then you probably won't have to say it's "usuable" shrunk down for the web but "not great". You may even be able to have a poster of it made then and capture all the details your looking for. FWIW My monitor is calibrated, so the photo to me looks to be a tad overdone in the color enhancement department.

 

The funny thing is, there is absolutely no processing on the image whatsoever. No color enhancement

I never shoot raw anymore, it's too much of a pain processing images all the time, and JPG files are very limiting in terms of what you can do post processing wise without making radical changes in the photo.

Personally, I don't think taking tank shots at low ISO with a wide open lense is the way to go about it, but again, that's just my opinion.

I'm sure that you are able to get some awesome photos using the technique you're most comfortable with as well.

 

As far as the monitor calibration, that's kind of a can of worms. Calibrated to what? :-)

[Aaron]

This is a great discussion and I'm learning a lot

 

However, with my D200 with that same lens, I can't imagine taking the above photo without flash at ISO 200, f/16, 1/125. It would be nearly black, there is just not nearly enough light even on a super high light tank to get that to come out. Can you take a photo of a similar subject (i.e., thru-the-glass reef tank) at those settings and post it? What other factors am I missing that would cause that photo to be correctly exposed?

 

Yep, exactly what I was saying

If you start beaming light all over the place with flashes or strobes you will run into a whole host of new problems - light refracting off the glass or acrylic, shadows, washed out colors, the list goes on.

If you open up the lense, you will end up with one spot in the photo that is perfectly focused, blur behind it, and blur in front of it.

If you slow down the shutter, well, better hope that nothing moves, and no fish swim accross the tank.

Also, the photo above was taken using the canned 10k white balance setting on my D90 vs. taking the time to actually set a true custom white balance.

 

I am enjoying the conversation as well. I am certainly not above learning something new from someone elses experiences with a camera!!

Edited December 10, 2010 by Aaron

[Jon Lazar]

I've had good results capturing a fish with ISO 200, f1.8, and 1/160, but in that case I want a shallow depth of field so the fish stands out against the blurred background. Even then you have to take the shot head on or full profile or you get a lot of blurry from the shallow DOF. Or focus on the eye and just let the rest of the fish fade out.

 

None of that applies to a FTS though

[ErikS]

Eric S- Yes noise or grain equates to the same thing.............

Apparently you keep missing it but I never said use a flash............regardless it matters not.

 

I am enjoying the conversation as well. I am certainly not above learning something new from someone elses experiences with a camera!!

Well really someone else's experiences with "a camera" doesn't matter - it's your camera that matters. Which is really all I said at the beginning - I don't know Oly, & that f3.5 was pretty slow.

 

Good answers for your camera can be found here - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1034&page=1

 

(be advised the current darling is the D7000, D90 info can be a bit tough to find at the moment)

 

The funny thing is, there is absolutely no processing on the image whatsoever. No color enhancement

I never shoot raw anymore, it's too much of a pain processing images all the time, and JPG files are very limiting in terms of what you can do post processing wise without making radical changes in the photo.

You should shoot raw, unless you really need jpeg (full speed shooting etc). You can get software to bulk process pictures, even if you simply use something like elements you can import, view, and toss pictures - only process the ones you intend to use for something else.

 

Given Nikon's default setting that pic does look a bit saturated.........Vivid or Vivid+ ? I have no idea what your tank really looks like but it would seem the D90 got the white balance right.......or it picked one that gave a nice image