Lens for Macro Photography

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Can anyone recommend a lens for Macro Photography in low vis conditions? I do wide angle with Canon Rebel and was looking to buy a macro lens that would give good results in low visibility.

Thanks in advance.

 

[saudio]

Can anyone recommend a lens for Macro Photography in low vis conditions? I do wide angle with Canon Rebel and was looking to buy a macro lens that would give good results in low visibility.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think any lens is particularly better or worse for low vis, the key to low vis macro is minimizing the distance from lens to subject and carefully aiming your strobes so you are edge lighting the subject and not illuminating the water in front of the lens.

A 60mm Macro lens lets you get closer than a 100mm, and adding a macro diopter allows you to get even closer. That would be my choice for low vis.

 

[Hashsaz]

Partly Agree with saudio.

the other part of disagreement is during low vis, better not to take photograph, easily lost from group. lol.

 

[PatW]

I shoot Nikon. But Canon and Nikon both make excellent macro lenses. I think both have a 60 mm macro and a 105 mm macro. Being macro lenses means at minimum focus the size of the image on the sensor of your camera is life size which makes for a pretty "close up" image. Both lenses are 2.8 F which is pretty good. Now the 60, requires a shorter distance needed for a close up and tends to have a greater depth of field. The 60 is probably best for low visibility. I don't know what you mean by "low visibility". Obviously, if the visibility is really low, nothing will work. But a visibility of 30' say, should be fine.

There are advantages to the 105. It has greater reach. You have to get pretty close with the 60. Some tube worms will contract if you get close enough for a good close up with a 60. The 105 would also seem to be good for taking shots of those pesky small fish that move quickly and will not let you get close. The bad part of the 105 is it is harder to focus and has a narrow depth of field.

Also because of the close focus, there is no way that you can do super macro photography with the 60. You can do this with diopters and a 105 that allows you to magnify really small critters like little blennies to create dramatic results.

In your case, I would suggest the 60 mm lens.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Thanks a lot for all the useful info folks. I believe most of my photography will be in New England waters where 10-15 ft vis tends to be the norm. I was looking to get a lens that would enable me to shoot multiple subjects (moving fish to still life) while still giving a clear shot in low vis. I was told to stay away from 105 because it means putting more distance between the camera and the subject. I do not know whether 10 - 15 feet vis would kill a shot if you are using 105.

 

[Larry C]

10-15ft. is a pretty typical low vis day where we dive. We consider bad vis when you can't see your hand to read your gauges. A 60mm works fine in all but the worst vis for macro subjects. The challenge is getting light on them for focus without creating a stream of backscatter that confuses the lens and prevents focus. If you're fairly shallow it's not too bad, but if you're deeper and there's a layer it can be too dark to use natural light for focus. If you use the focus light on minimum setting and get it out over the top of the subject, it helps. The 60 will also let you get fish portraits in 10-15ft. The 105 will probably require too much water between you and the subject.

 

[klausi]

I love my Canon 100mm USM f2.8.What makes it essentially an 125mm lens is the extension ring - great for really tiny things. You loose the ability to focus on infinity, but there is no need for that anyway in underwater macro. Checkout the skeleton shrimp image, that animal is maybe 5mm in size.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

I love my Canon 100mm USM f2.8.What makes it essentially an 125mm lens is the extension ring - great for really tiny things. You loose the ability to focus on infinity, but there is no need for that anyway in underwater macro. Checkout the skeleton shrimp image, that animal is maybe 5mm in size.

Personally, I prefer macro photography that will leave the background all blurry and out of focus. For me that would be a plus. How far do you think you were from the animal when you clicked this image? Curious.

 

[Searcaigh]

I am also a Nikon user but I choose my lens depending on what I am going to photograph if I am lucky to know that ahead of time, but you know Murphy's Law.

I do prefer the versatility of the 60, but frequently change between that and the 105 and more recently the 85, which fits in the same port as the 60.

A new tool in my kit that also works well with these lenses is a SubSee wet diopter (+5 and +10) allowing an additional magnification when you do find something tiny like that skeleton shrimp posted by klausi.

 

[bvanant]

Here in LA 10 foot is not a bad day at all. For that I would start with the Canon or Tamron 60 mm lens. Both do 1:1 but you can add a 1.4 tele to the Tamron, not so for the Canon.
Bill