# 50mm 70mm or 100mm macro lens



## EnderUK (20 Apr 2014)

Just wondering what peoples views are for aquarium photography. Going to look at updating my kit lens in the next month or so and would like some feed bank. I'm not going to break the bank my budget is around £200 so it will probably be second hand. I'm pretty sure I won't get inbuilt autofocus or that price though but some of my manual focusing has been quite good.

Currently I think I'm taking okay shots with the kit lens at 55mm but some shots at the rear of the tank are difficult, however if I get a prime lens with a nice f-stop I think this would improve matters.

100mm I have no idea on the zoom actually is on this,this might be to much. I guess I will simply have to move the whole camera back to get wider shots. I don't know how this would be effected by reflection off the tank. Do I need to be in total darkness? I have been looking at the Tokina 100mm F/2.8 AT-X Macro - Nikon Fit

70mm might be the nice balancing point?

Any feed back and recommendations.


----------



## BigTom (20 Apr 2014)

Go for as long a lens as you can afford for macro. Especially for aquarium photography where you're physically limited by the glass as to how close you can get. Something around 100mm is good. I used to have the Sigma 150 which was utterly superb for aquarium work. 

But don't get rid of the kit lens, macro lenses are pretty specialised beasts so you'll still want a good general use lens.


----------



## BigTom (20 Apr 2014)

PS. Unless you'v got a billion watts of light above the tank you may quickly find yourself wishing for an off-camera flash as well. There are relatively basic but correspondingly cheap options form the likes of Metz and Yongnuo which are worth looking at.


----------



## EnderUK (20 Apr 2014)

yeah I had no intention of getting rid of the kit lens, I do probably need another zoom lens but for now I'll be looking at the 100mm or possibly a 150mm depending on budget stretching. I'll keep the options open on the flash as well  Thanks.


----------



## Paul Butler (20 Apr 2014)

Generally longer is better with macro lenses. But it does depend on what type of "macro" photography you want to do. The biggest advantage to me using a macro is the short close focussing distance, I rarely do real macro work (e.g. photographing bugs at or near to 1:1). Macro lenses are generally very sharp so for me a 60mm is perfect and that is on full frame too, I did have a 100mm but that was too long for my needs. However I did find it good for aquarium photography even when I was using a crop camera. I owned a Tokina 100 ATX Pro and found it to be superb so I don't think you'd be disappointed with it. Another excellent lens is the Tamron 90mm (any version).


----------



## Alastair (20 Apr 2014)

Ive found the sigma 17-70 with os to be an awesome lense for my nikon. Got it for a bargain too


----------



## BigTom (20 Apr 2014)

Yeah it depends whether you want 1:1 macro or not.... the Sigma 17-70 is a pretty ace general purpose lens by all accounts, but only goes to 0.36x magnification, compared to 1.00x magnification with a dedicated macro lens. The 17-70 will also be very hard to get even to 0.36x if photographing fish, because the working distance (distance from front of the lens to the subject) for that magnification is just 5.5cm, whereas the Tokina discussed before will offer 1x mag at 11cm (and an equivalent 0.36x at a much greater distance).


----------



## EnderUK (20 Apr 2014)

I was looking at the 17-70 as well but that would probably be a replacement for the general kit lens in a couple of years time. This thing is worst than my gaming PC for money sink.


Sent from my ME173X using Tapatalk


----------



## Alastair (20 Apr 2014)

BigTom said:


> Yeah it depends whether you want 1:1 macro or not.... the Sigma 17-70 is a pretty ace general purpose lens by all accounts, but only goes to 0.36x magnification, compared to 1.00x magnification with a dedicated macro lens. The 17-70 will also be very hard to get even to 0.36x if photographing fish, because the working distance (distance from front of the lens to the subject) for that magnification is just 5.5cm, whereas the Tokina discussed before will offer 1x mag at 11cm (and an equivalent 0.36x at a much greater distance).



Great thanks tom guess what im now bidding on


----------



## X3NiTH (20 Apr 2014)

A Mint Condition second hand Nikkor 60mm f2.8D is about £280 from Grays of Westminster, I'm sure it could be sourced elsewhere a little cheaper. It's a cracking lens and it gives 1:1 (what I'm using). It's autofocus is screw driven so if you're camera doesn't support that then you will be manual focusing, I use it in manual focus anyway since the depth of field is razor thin wide open and I find it easier to brace against the glass and move the camera back and forth passing the subject through the DOF. It also makes a cracking normal lens, it's super sharp and it's pretty fast at f2.8.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5313/13914264141_67325af145_c.jpg


----------



## Mark Green (10 Oct 2015)

A little help if you can.........
Im looking at buying a nikon D3300 ( looked at the D 5300 & D7300 Nikon also) as it has the same Image processor-sensor format & sensor type as the other two mentioned. Don't no much about cameras but from what  i can understand from the forum, the len's is more important than the body. And all the above Nikon cameras will give me the same quality picture.

So what i need help with is what lens to buy...................I would pay more now to get the right lens than make a mistake and waste money. so if it means buying 2 lens that's fine with me( new or secound hand)

1.   Need a great lens for full tank shots.
2.   Need to be able to shoot wide angle to show great depth
3.   Need to be able to do close up shots, do's not need to be Micro but close if you get me.



BigTom said:


> Yeah it depends whether you want 1:1 macro or not.... the Sigma 17-70 is a pretty ace general purpose lens by all accounts, but only goes to 0.36x magnification, compared to 1.00x magnification with a dedicated macro lens. The 17-70 will also be very hard to get even to 0.36x if photographing fish, because the working distance (distance from front of the lens to the subject) for that magnification is just 5.5cm, whereas the Tokina discussed before will offer 1x mag at 11cm (and an equivalent 0.36x at a much greater distance).


Big Tom, maybe you can help, would the Sigma 17-70 and the Tokina 100 ATX Pro be what im looking for?????



Alastair said:


> Ive found the sigma 17-70 with os to be an awesome lense for my nikon. Got it for a bargain too





Alastair said:


> Great thanks tom guess what im now bidding on


Alistair do you have both the Sigma and Tokina 100 lens? are you happy with them or would you change them for somthing different after seeing how they work in the flesh??


----------



## Edvet (10 Oct 2015)

If i may chime in. I often use my 24-85mm, 2.8-4 Nikkor for taking tank pictures. Now that one is only found secondhand nowadays. I has a very usable macro switch (1:2). It alllows  a fts from reasonably close  (at 24 mm),  you'll get some fish-eye effect you'll need to correct in fotoshop, but that's all, and you can get close-ups with the 85 mm end.There is a newer version from this lens which wasn't stellar (but cheaper). Remember a lens will go for a lifetime, while bodies wil be renewed every now and then.

 I also have a 60 mm, 2.8 dedicated mcro (Nikkor) and a 180 mm, 3.5  dedicated micro from SIgma.The 60 mm is better for taking pictures from very close (object just a few cm before lens), while the 180 mm is better for taking pictures from a bit further (insects on plants and so, where you cant get to a few cm).

Taking pictures from a tank have a few problems. Apart from reflections from outside, taking pictures through glass will have an effect too. Especially with the micro's shooting at an angle through glass will give unsharp pictures. Shooting at right angles will give better results, especially at thicker, non-optiwhite glass. I have to cope with 14 mm green glass. this will be harder.

If you are serious about taking pictures you'll need to consider two more things: 1) an exrternal flashlight, 2 ) a solid tripod,.


----------



## Mark Green (13 Oct 2015)

Edvet said:


> If i may chime in. I often use my 24-85mm, 2.8-4 Nikkor for taking tank pictures. Now that one is only found secondhand nowadays. I has a very usable macro switch (1:2). It alllows  a fts from reasonably close  (at 24 mm),  you'll get some fish-eye effect you'll need to correct in fotoshop, but that's all, and you can get close-ups with the 85 mm end.There is a newer version from this lens which wasn't stellar (but cheaper). Remember a lens will go for a lifetime, while bodies wil be renewed every now and then.
> 
> I also have a 60 mm, 2.8 dedicated mcro (Nikkor) and a 180 mm, 3.5  dedicated micro from SIgma.The 60 mm is better for taking pictures from very close (object just a few cm before lens), while the 180 mm is better for taking pictures from a bit further (insects on plants and so, where you cant get to a few cm).
> 
> ...



So many chooses, starting to get head spin. Ive decided on the D5300 as its wifi is inbuilt which will help when taking pictures and able to see them straight away on the lap top. However on lens choose im still not clear what would be the best buy. Also seen Nikon Nikkor AF-S 35MM F/1/8G DX  is this any good.

solid tripod and external lighting are on the shopping list. thx


----------



## Edvet (13 Oct 2015)

Mark Green said:


> AF-S 35MM F/1/8G DX


My son has that one, nice lens but not for closeups of fish, usable for fts, best for landscapes, travel photography


----------



## Mark Green (13 Oct 2015)

Just been reading this thread by Mark Evans http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/canon-135mm-f2-l-random-shots.11597/

Very expensive *canon 135mm F2 L.*
What would you say is the closest thing for a Nikon D5300?

I found these, which would you say is close in picture quality....

Nikon Nikkor DC 135mm f/2DNikon Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8GNikon Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF


----------



## Edvet (13 Oct 2015)

135 and 85 1.4 are superb lenses, but at a price. These are more used  as pro portret lenses. You might look at a better body too then

In lenses you usualy get what you pay for. Top lenses are 1000 euro  and over. Below that you can get good lenses, sometimes very good, but never "top". But  do you need those?


----------



## flygja (15 Oct 2015)

I wouldn't recommend the 135mm or 85mm for aquatic photography though. You don't get the macro for close ups, and its too telephoto for full tank shots. I usually stay away from anything 135mm and 85mm because they are deathly expensive. Like Ed mentioned, they're pro portrait lenses.


----------



## Stu Worrall (10 Nov 2015)

and don't forget that Mark was using his 135mm on a full frame body so it was actually 135mm.  On your camera the Nikkor 135mm would be 202mm as I think you have a crop factor of 1.5 on nikons? (if they work the same as canon which is 1.6)

You mentioned above about getting a wide for great depth and for this on a crop body you'd need to be starting at 10mm to 17mm.  It also depends on the width of your tank but most of my full tank shots are done between 20-35mm on full frame withe the odd 16mm now and then.


----------



## Mark Green (14 Nov 2015)

Edvet said:


> 135 and 85 1.4 are superb lenses, but at a price. These are more used  as pro portret lenses. You might look at a better body too then
> 
> In lenses you usualy get what you pay for. Top lenses are 1000 euro  and over. Below that you can get good lenses, sometimes very good, but never "top". But  do you need those?


After looking around a bit more for a camera it looks like its either a nikon D7100 ( new), or a Canon 5D Mkii ( second hand). Your right about the lens mentioned, need to walk before I can run.



flygja said:


> I wouldn't recommend the 135mm or 85mm for aquatic photography though. You don't get the macro for close ups, and its too telephoto for full tank shots. I usually stay away from anything 135mm and 85mm because they are deathly expensive. Like Ed mentioned, they're pro portrait lenses.


It really don't understand how expensive lens are, it absolutely crazy. So will not be in a rush to buy these 2 lens. Mainly for tank shots, and the wife.


Stu Worrall said:


> and don't forget that Mark was using his 135mm on a full frame body so it was actually 135mm.  On your camera the Nikkor 135mm would be 202mm as I think you have a crop factor of 1.5 on nikons? (if they work the same as canon which is 1.6)
> 
> You mentioned above about getting a wide for great depth and for this on a crop body you'd need to be starting at 10mm to 17mm.  It also depends on the width of your tank but most of my full tank shots are done between 20-35mm on full frame withe the odd 16mm now and then.


Was looking at this site about wide lens http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
  mentions the Tokina 10-24mm as a good lens ( thinking of buying Nikon D7100) or any quality camera in that price range new or second hand. Any suggestions?


----------



## flygja (16 Nov 2015)

Mark Green said:


> It really don't understand how expensive lens are, it absolutely crazy. So will not be in a rush to buy these 2 lens. Mainly for tank shots, and the wife.


Oh... the wife will definitely appreciate the 135mm...


----------



## Sudipto (6 Jan 2016)

I find the Tamron 90 a good compromise in terms of price vis-a-vis quality. But if budget is not an issue, go for the maximum reach you can afford.


----------

