Best macro lens for my situation?

[Philipgonzales3]

I have a 50 gallon SCAquariums. Still cycling, so no fish yet.

Dimensions are 24"x24"x20" 10mm glass.



Plan to have it as a FOWLR for at least a year before I even consider coral.

I'm planning on buying a Nikon d5300. I had the d5200, for a while, when it first came out but had to sell it to buy a washer and dryer.

I skimmed this article and I noticed the recommended crop sensor lens was a Nikon - AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Macro Lens

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...how-to-take-great-photos-at-the-aquarium.html

I believe the article was talking about taking pictures at large public aquariums. I read on here someone recommending a 90mm Macro lense. Looking to see what lens would work best for me? Going to start of with a pair of "designer" clownfish. Nothing too crazy. Hopefully a pair of Gladiator/Davinchi. Then I will add more fish from there. Is it worth it to get a DSLR for mostly taking fish pics?

 

[jsker]

I have been looking at a 100 mm lens and have seen others take some really nice pictures with the 100 over the 60 mm

 

[BigJim]

It depends a lot on the location of your subject in the tank. A 90mm or 100mm is great for close ups, but sometimes you are too close to get the entire coral. The 40mm is great for fish pictures. Keep in mind that taking pictures of fish is difficult. You are doing great if you are happy with 1 out of 10 photos. It is okay for coral pictures but it is hard to get as close as you want much of the time. The 40mm can also be a great all around lens for family photos and even macro shots of flowers and insects. It may be the best bang for the buck lens Nikkor makes. Here are some shots I took with the 40mm on a Nikon D7500. The lights had turned pretty blue by the time I took the coral pics.

foxface 121018 by Big Jim, on Flickr
Clownfish 121618 by Big Jim, on Flickr
copperband 120918 by Big Jim, on Flickr
mystery wrasse 120918 2 by Big Jim, on Flickr
fascination favia 120918 by Big Jim, on Flickr
full tilt 120818 by Big Jim, on Flickr

 

[Philipgonzales3]

It depends a lot on the location of your subject in the tank. A 90mm or 100mm is great for close ups, but sometimes you are too close to get the entire coral. The 40mm is great for fish pictures. Keep in mind that taking pictures of fish is difficult. You are doing great if you are happy with 1 out of 10 photos. It is okay for coral pictures but it is hard to get as close as you want much of the time. The 40mm can also be a great all around lens for family photos and even macro shots of flowers and insects. It may be the best bang for the buck lens Nikkor makes. Here are some shots I took with the 40mm on a Nikon D7500. The lights had turned pretty blue by the time I took the coral pics.

foxface 121018 by Big Jim, on Flickr
Clownfish 121618 by Big Jim, on Flickr
copperband 120918 by Big Jim, on Flickr
mystery wrasse 120918 2 by Big Jim, on Flickr
fascination favia 120918 by Big Jim, on Flickr
full tilt 120818 by Big Jim, on Flickr

Here are a few pics I took with my D5200. I did not spend much time learning how to photograph fish at the time. I was pretty happy with just pointing at the glass and snapping a photo. It looks like I took most pics with the 18-55mm kit lens. I had also bought a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens. Most pics were likely taken too far from the glass. I didn't have my camera or fish very long. Maybe a year or so. This was when I was living with my mom, so shortly thereafter I got my associates degree (I now have my bachelor's degree) and moved out. I hope to keep both the fish and camera long term now that I am older and my income is more stable. Seems like the 40mm is exactly what I need. Thank you!

Taken with 50mm lens
0530 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Taken with 18-55mm kit lens
DSC_0295 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Taken with 18-55mm kit lens
DSC_0291 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Taken with 18-55mm kit lens
DSC_0289 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Not sure what I took this with. Doesn't show anything for EXIF data.
Untitled by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Taken with 18-55mm kit lens
DSC_0290 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Fry, Taken with 18-55mm kit lensTest by philipgonzales3, on Flickr



Here are a couple of other pics I took.

Hummingbird. Wish I could have gone a little faster with the shutter speed so it's wings would appear still. Taken with 55-300mm kit lens.
715 (2) by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

RoadRunner. Taken with 55-300mm kit lens.
740 by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

Peach tree, taken with? IDK maybe 50mm lens. Doesn't show any camera info on my flikr.
Untitled by philipgonzales3, on Flickr

 

[BigJim]

Those are great shots for a kit lens. I was going to suggest the 50mm for you. I have the 50mm 1.4g but I have heard the 1.8 is just as good. I think I take better fish pictures with the 50mm than I do with the 40mm. Maybe you would do best to practice with the 50mm and see what you can get. Then you can decide on a macro lens when you get some corals.

 

[Philipgonzales3]

Those are great shots for a kit lens. I was going to suggest the 50mm for you. I have the 50mm 1.4g but I have heard the 1.8 is just as good. I think I take better fish pictures with the 50mm than I do with the 40mm. Maybe you would do best to practice with the 50mm and see what you can get. Then you can decide on a macro lens when you get some corals.

Hmm OK, something to think about. Maybe I should get both the 50mm and 40mm macro. I'm going to wait until this whole partial government shutdown blows over, hopefully it won't last too long and I can go get the camera and lense(s). Oh yeah and the fish if my tank ever finishes cycling lol.

 

[wooboodoo]

As Jim said...
I have two macro lenses the 70mm and 105mm. For closeups I use 105mm but for object like fish or whole coral 70mm.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Keep in mind. All the lenses foam as DX and FX so you don’t have to factor it in when you buy it unless you get it used.
Also a standard 50mm and 35 mm actually have a very good close focus. It’s marked on the barrel, front of the lens and in the spec sheets as minimum focus.

 

[Philipgonzales3]

Keep in mind. All the lenses foam as DX and FX so you don’t have to factor it in when you buy it unless you get it used.
Also a standard 50mm and 35 mm actually have a very good close focus. It’s marked on the barrel, front of the lens and in the spec sheets as minimum focus.

Ah you brought up a good point. The 50mm (prime not macro) lens that I had for my D5200 was not designated as a DX lens so that means it had the equivalent focal length of 75mm I believe. The 40mm lens
(Nikon - AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Macro Lens) that I was looking as is indeed designated as a DX lens.

The 18-55mm kit lens I believe was designated as DX. With both the kit lens and the 50mm prime lens I had I believe I was probably about a foot away from the glass based on it's minimum focal distance.

What does this all mean? That I am now even more confused than when I started! Haha.

But no worries will probably pick up the 40mm DX Macro lens and Maybe even the 50mm Prime 1.8 lens for general purpose. Then figure it out from there. I think the next jump up at the DX 40mm micro lens is the 85mm?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

The reason a macro is a macro is the close focus capability. Period.

The magnification is what it is.

Do look at the non macro 40 close focus distance first. Often the 40 is not that good.

IMO , for macro you’ll want 60 90 or 100 dependant on the manufacturer.
One or the other. Or a 60 90 is combo. I use a manual focus 35mm (non Dx obviously) for fish pics and it has a wicked good close focus.

 

[wooboodoo]

Keep in mind. All the lenses foam as DX and FX so you don’t have to factor it in when you buy it unless you get it used.
Also a standard 50mm and 35 mm actually have a very good close focus. It’s marked on the barrel, front of the lens and in the spec sheets as minimum focus.

Of course you’re absolutely right...
In my opinion 35mm is fine when you’re able to move photographed objects or they’re very close to the glass or water surface. Other than that I prefer 70mm or 105mm.

 

[Philipgonzales3]

The reason a macro is a macro is the close focus capability. Period.

The magnification is what it is.

Do look at the non macro 40 close focus distance first. Often the 40 is not that good.

IMO , for macro you’ll want 60 90 or 100 dependant on the manufacturer.
One or the other. Or a 60 90 is combo. I use a manual focus 35mm (non Dx obviously) for fish pics and it has a wicked good close focus.

Well I'm thinking I may be able to get "decent" pics with even the kit lens 18-55mm.

This is what I did for most of the African Cichlid pics above but I think with a closer minimum focal distance I will be able to get closer to the glass and get a better picture.

Here is the minimal focus distance for the 18-55mm DX kit lens.

0.28 m/0.92 ft from focal plane (in AF)
0.25 m/0.82 ft from focal plane (in MF)

But I do want to do my best to aim above "decent".

The main reason I was thinking the 40mm is because of this article. He mentions that the longer focal distances won't be able to get the whole fish in the frame.

But then again my fish are going to be pretty small. Defonetly no yellow tangs like the example picture.

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...how-to-take-great-photos-at-the-aquarium.html


I only see a 40 and an 85 as far as crop sensor goes in Nikon's lineup.

Go get more focal length I guess I could go with an FX 60 which equals 90 on a DX. Or an 85 FX which equals 127.5 on a DX body.


Hmm decesion decesion.

So the options are 40mm DX Micro, 85mm DX Micro, 60mm FX Micro, or 85mm FX Micro.

Sorry I'm just rambling on at this point lol. Maybe the 85mm DX would be the best starting point? Hmm might as well get the 40mm DX too.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I once hung out with a guy who had been educated at both Brooks film academy and afi.

He had sold all his bits and pieces and hassleblad.

He showed me the pics he took on his Leica point and shoot and his iPhone

I stopped buying lenses.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Of course you’re absolutely right...
In my opinion 35mm is fine when you’re able to move photographed objects or they’re very close to the glass or water surface. Other than that I prefer 70mm or 105mm.

No, I didn’t move anything.

Keep in mind macro pics can be very different things. You’re not going to get acro polyps but you can get nice fish pics and colonies.


I’ve never owned a macro lens over 55mm.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/saltyfilmfolks-my-pictures-thread.232226/

 

[BigJim]

You might want to look around for a local camera shop. The one near me rents lenses for $35 and they will deduct that from the price of the lens if you decide to but it. They might also have used lenses that you can buy at a discount. I think I paid $170 for my 40mm used.

 

[wooboodoo]

No, I didn’t move anything.

Keep in mind macro pics can be very different things. You’re not going to get acro polyps but you can get nice fish pics and colonies.


I’ve never owned a macro lens over 55mm.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/saltyfilmfolks-my-pictures-thread.232226/

This is basically what I said in my first comment...

 

[najer]

I have the 40 mm Nikon a 16 - 35 Nikon zoom, my everyday lens and a Tamron 90.
Think about you tank dimensions, how far away is a fish going to be max.!
This was just earlier, tamron 90, the fish was about 2 feet away, I would practice with the standard zoom at 40 mm and see if you like the detail you get.
Good luck deciding!

DSC_0002 by sshipuk, on Flickr

 

[Philipgonzales3]

Well it looks like I will be stuck with the cell phone camera for the short term, unless this government shutdown ends next week.

I guess it's a good thing "the best camera is the one you have with you." At least that's what I'm going to have to tell myself until some funding clears up.

Here's a few shots I got with my cell phone (Note 8).



With my son's freshwater tank, I'm not even going to try. The fish are tiny! Lol.



This fatty is probably the only one I can get and it's because he's asleep during the day lol.

 

[fabutahoun]

I Love my Canon 100mm canon I use it all the time for most of my photos and videos.
I think the Nikon equivalent is 105mm

 

[maroun.c]

looking at your tank dimensions and the minimum focusing distance and focal lengths of the tamron 90mm or the Nikon 105 I don't think they will work on such a small tank. I'd suggest the following:
-checkout the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 2.8, being a 2.8 lense its better quality that the 3.5-4.6 lenses and will allow you faster shutter speeds at wide open with reasonable sharpness at that. Checkout the photography articles on the stickies in this forum, and my build thread most shots are taken with the tamron 17-50 2.8. it also focuses very close allowing you to support your lens on the glass and fill up the frame with your subject so you get great closeups.
-thinking that your tank has very limited front to back width I'd have fun playing with the 50mm (1.4 if you can afford it or the 1.8) it'll be a bit tricky to focus and limited to corals only on the front side of the tank but will allow you greater magnification ratios than a macro lense and is ridiculously cheap.
-the fact that your body is a crop lense Camera it'll multuiply the focal length of your lense by 1.5 so your 50 mm is then a 75 and the 105 is more than 150 so that's very long for a small tank. FX camera will help a lot with focal lengths and with image quality but those will require FX lenses that are way more expensive. DX lenses will still work with nikon as it'll crop out the area out of the senor but that makes you lose pixels andalso an FX lense will show the imperfections in "lower quality glass"much more than DX lenses.
-you also need to know what other macro shoots you'll be doing, I see flowers and wildlife? if that's the case then 60 or 105 will have to depend of your eventual subjects you might be shooting more and decide accordingly.