Lenses

Photography knowledge exchange.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
DjKtastrophe
Posts: 4
Joined: March 3rd, 2015, 12:04 pm
Location: NJ/PA

Lenses

Post by DjKtastrophe »

I have a canon t3i, and I was wondering what lenses would be good for field use? Specifically up close photography.
User avatar
Trey
Posts: 156
Joined: October 1st, 2010, 9:40 pm
Location: NE OHIO

Re: Lenses

Post by Trey »

If I had a Canon this is the lens I would get http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... &A=details
fvachss
Posts: 90
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Ventura County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by fvachss »

The 100mm macro lens being recommended is certainly a fine one, but probably wouldn't be the first one I'd recommend for herping. Something like either the 300/4IS or 100-400IS would allow for much greater working distance - and the potential to get a shot when the subject is skittish. The trade off is that neither of these lenses allow the magnification of the macro lens. The 300 and 100-400 have maximum magnifications of .24 and .20, respectively, while the 100 mm macro lens will go all the way to 1:1. This means that the minimum size of subject that will fill the frame is 4 -5 times the 15 x 22 mm frame size of the OP's T3i - or around the size of a 3 x 5 index card - for the longer telephoto lenses, while it can be as small as one's thumbnail with the 100 mm macro. The long telephotos, however, achieve this framing from 5-6 feet away while the 100 mm must be only a few inches away from its subject to achieve its maximum magnification.

The upshot is that the best choice depends on the desired subject. For most snakes and lizards I prefer the greater working distance of the longer teles, but for some small amphibians (and, of course, lots of bugs) I have found macro lenses to give me more flexibility.
User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by Noah M »

90mm macro or higher. My Sigma 105mm is my go to herping lens. Most herps, frogs, turtles, curled up snakes, are not that big.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by chrish »

I agree with captainjack. You probably want a macro lens in the 90mm to 105mm range.

If it is your only lens, I would recommend a good macro zoom. You will have to do some reading online from the different lens evaluation sites, but there are some perfectly good zoom lenses that go from 18-70ish that have good macro capability. These would be more flexible than just having one fixed macro.

If you have a zoom lens already, then a fixed focal length macro would be a good bet. I prefer a shorter lens (Sigma has a nice 70mm macro, for example). These slight shorter lenses are easier to use in the field. I sometimes find my 90mm macro too long to get the shot I want.
User avatar
Stohlgren
Posts: 603
Joined: November 6th, 2010, 10:59 am
Location: Athens, GA (Columbia, MO)

Re: Lenses

Post by Stohlgren »

To follow up on Chris' post, I shot with a 100mm macro for a long time until it died. I was reluctant to go with a shorter lens but ultimately decided on Sigma's 70mm macro due to it being half the price and I absolutely love it. Razor sharp and I actually find the shorter working distance helpful because I can be closer to the subject I am posing, and am still plenty far away to safely photo venomous snakes.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by chrish »

Another to keep in mind when looking at "macro" lenses is to think about what kind of magnification you really need.

Yes, good macro lenses will go down to 1:1. Yes, that is a lot of magnification, but do you need that much?

Your camera has a sensor that is roughly 22 x 15 mm. For comparison, an SD card is 32 x 24 mm, so your sensor is about 2/3 the size of an SD card.
With a 1:1 lens, you can fill the frame with something that size. That would be a full frame shot of the tiniest frogs. It would be too tight for a shot of a chorus frog, for example. You can get a decent picture of a big ant at that magnification.

If you had a lens that was "limited" to 1:2, you could only fill the frame with something that was 44mm across, about 1.7 inches. Again, a tiny herp would fill that frame readily. Keep in mind that you don't really want the herp in the frame from edge to edge. You want some space around it. At 1:2, you can get a great full frame shot of a tiny frog, etc..

I shoot a lot of my herp shots with a lens that only goes to 1:4. That means I can only fill the frame with something 88mm (3.5 inches) across. That's a full frame shot of a small toad.

When you add the fact that your camera is 18mp, you can crop significantly and still get an outstanding image. So even if you have a 1:2 lens, you can get a 1:1 crop easily or beyond. I have a 24MP camera now, but with my older 16MP camera I frequently cropped down to the center 1/9th of the frame (1/3 off the top and bottom and each side) and got perfectly good shots for posting online. At that crop your 1:2 lens focused as close as it can is giving you a usable crop.

Here's a roughly 1:1 shot of a non herp -

Image

Here's a 90% crop of that image -

Image

However, don't disregard "true" fixed focal length macro lenses. They are generally some of the sharpest lenses made. But you don't necessarily need to shell out the $$ to get a true 1:1 macro for herp photography.
User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by Noah M »

I didn't even consider a 70mm macro. I could see the advantages they offer others have suggested.

I bought the 105mm when it was on sale. The image quality, from pretty much everything I could read, was on par with the canon 100mm version. There have been a few times when the subject was too large or close and I actually couldn't get the whole animal in frame. I cruised up a 5-6' rat snake that did not want to coil at all, and it was too big for my frisbee! With the macro on, I could only get a head and neck shot. But from my experience, these cases are the exception, not the rule. I luckily had with me my kit lens, so I bagged the snake for a quick lens change, and then I was back in business.

Here is an example of a tiny toad I recently took a pic of with the 105mm macro.

Image

One of the things you can see is the front edge of the quarter is out of focus. Shooting with a macro lens means making sure you know your aperture inside and out. I usually start around f/11, but recently (because of things like that quarter) I've been leaning towards f/16 or even f/18 to try and get more of the subject in focus.
RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Lenses

Post by RobertH »

As someone else suggested at the beginning of this thread, you might also consider a zoom lens. Specifically, this macro zoom lens covers much of the focal range you need for herp photography:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-f3 ... B008B48AAE

I don't have this lens myself, but if I were in your shoes, that would be one of the main contenders. The special thing with this lens is that you have some true macro capability (though not comparable to, say, the Canon 100mm) and also decent zoom capability (not as powerful as, say, the Canon 400mm). The lens is also particularly light and small, so you can easily carry it in the field all day. Because it covers a wide range of shooting situations, including wide angle, macro and zoom shots, you won't have to change lenses much, if at all.

This is what DP Review, a highly regarded online photography magazine, says about the lens:

"The Sigma 18-250mm is compact, has decent enough optics, offers fast autofocus and effective image stabilization, and tops this all off with impressive close-up ability. We'd be inclined to conclude that it's the best-rounded general-purpose SLR lens currently on the market."

The main drawback is reduced image quality. A zoom lens will never be as sharp as a prime. But this being one of your first lenses, other factors, e.g., your learning curve, will tend to have a much greater impact on image quality than the lens. You would probably outgrow the Sigma 18-250mm at some point and want to add some prime lenses to your arsenal, but even then you may use the Sigma as your go-to walk-around lens and change to a heavier prime lens only when needed.

Whatever lenses you are considering, be sure to read several online reviews on each lens. Though they are not written by or for herpers, they will still give the basic information you need to know before buying.

Good luck with your search.

Robert
bgorum
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:46 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by bgorum »

RobertH wrote:The main drawback is reduced image quality. A zoom lens will never be as sharp as a prime. But this being one of your first lenses, other factors, e.g., your learning curve, will tend to have a much greater impact on image quality than the lens. You would probably outgrow the Sigma 18-250mm at some point and want to add some prime lenses to your arsenal, but even then you may use the Sigma as your go-to walk-around lens and change to a heavier prime lens only when needed.

Whatever lenses you are considering, be sure to read several online reviews on each lens. Though they are not written by or for herpers, they will still give the basic information you need to know before buying.

Good luck with your search.

Robert
I realize this is kind of an old thread, and the OP probably already made his decision, but others looking for advice on what lens to buy may read this in the future. For that reason I want to address one of the points made above and that is this whole notion of fixed focal length lenses being sharper than zoom lenses. In an absolute sense, this is almost always true. Pick any zoom lens, test it at some particular focal length and you can probably find a prime lens of that focal length that will outperform the zoom in some way. (Maybe the fixed lens is sharper wide open, etc). So if you want to amass a portfolio of lens test chart pictures that resolve as many line pairs/millimeter as possible, fixed focal length lenses are the only way to go. If on the other hand you want to go out into the real world and take real pictures, well then things get a little more complicated. I think many herp photographers have the idea that fixed lenses are much better than zooms because of how they get into photography. Many will buy a dslr with a kit zoom lens, then later add a fixed focal length macro lens to their arsenal. They compare the pictures taken with the kit zoom to the pictures taken with the macro, and what do you know? The macro lens produces sharper pictures! Problem is, that's an apples to oranges comparison. Of course the macro produces sharper pictures! It is a high end optic where the designers emphasize image quality over cost. The kit zoom on the other hand is designed to be an inexpensive lens to bundle with camera bodies. It probably performs quite well, for its price point. Swap that kit zoom out for something like a 24-70 f2.8 and the difference between the macro and zoom will be much harder to see.

The second important point in this debate is one that Robert already alluded to above, and that is the role of your own technique. Seeing the difference between lenses requires impeccable technique. How many herp photographers routinely stop their lenses down to f22 or smaller to get "adequate" depth of field. At really small apertures like that diffraction renders even the best lenses relatively unsharp. (Yes, your pictures at f22 or smaller may well look nice and sharp, but believe me, they would be quite a bit sharper a couple stops wider. Just goes to show how unimportant the sort of "lens test chart" sharpness is to real world pictures). Additionally, at more modest apertures, (say f8 or f11), virtually all lenses perform quite well. Its close to wide open, which we rarely use for herps, where you might see the performance advantage of a prime lens. How many herp photographers religiously use a tripod? I guarantee you using a tripod will do more for the sharpness of your photos than choosing fixed over zoom lenses ever will. (Yes, I know we now have lenses and bodies with image stabilization. I own a couple vr lenses myself and think they are awesome when I have to hand hold, but vr is no substitute for a good tripod). In fact, I think the compositional flexibility of zoom lenses encourages one to use a tripod, (you can more easily frame a shot just the way you want it from a fixed position). So in that case the photographer using a zoom may well get sharper pictures than the one using fixed lenses!

One final point. If you're buying a long zoom lens for herp work I wouldn't concern myself too much with the "macro" modes some zooms have. A two element diopter, (like a Canon 500D), mounted on the front of the zoom will almost certainly give better results.
User avatar
Thorny
Posts: 25
Joined: June 6th, 2013, 1:40 pm
Location: Where ever there is work
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by Thorny »

I am of the least experience DSLR users in the world but I wanted to throw this out there in the prime vs. zoom debate. While I am sure there are exceptions to this, herp photography is one of the few forms of wildlife photography where there is not much emphasis placed on action shots and where you might have the opportunity to take over a 100 shots hoping for the perfect photograph vs. 5 during a 15 second opportunity. I don't think the flexibility advantages of a zoom are as applicable to herp photography as they are in many other forms of wildlife photography.

Right now I just have an 18-140mm kit lens and a 90mm Macro. Next on my list is the Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR once its issues are settled. Not sure what I am doing after that (continually stare at the super telephoto zumes but not sold on any of them...thinking to far ahead).

Also need a tripod.

Also need time off to be able to use any of this stuff.
bgorum
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:46 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by bgorum »

Thorny wrote:I am of the least experience DSLR users in the world but I wanted to throw this out there in the prime vs. zoom debate. While I am sure there are exceptions to this, herp photography is one of the few forms of wildlife photography where there is not much emphasis placed on action shots and where you might have the opportunity to take over a 100 shots hoping for the perfect photograph vs. 5 during a 15 second opportunity. I don't think the flexibility advantages of a zoom are as applicable to herp photography as they are in many other forms of wildlife photography.

Right now I just have an 18-140mm kit lens and a 90mm Macro. Next on my list is the Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR once its issues are settled. Not sure what I am doing after that (continually stare at the super telephoto zumes but not sold on any of them...thinking to far ahead).

Also need a tripod.

Also need time off to be able to use any of this stuff.
Have to respectfully, but completely disagree with you on a couple points here. First of all there are herp photographers that shoot insitu and who seek out "action" shots. Granted herps with their slower metabolisms may be more less active than birds and mammals, but action shots are still possible. Lizards are especially good contenders for action shots.
ImageGorum_150605_2643 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

ImageGorum_150603_2472 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

ImageGorum_150503_1263 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

ImageGorum_130818_0018 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

ImageGorum_130805_0393-291 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

I sort of see the potential utility of a zoom lens for different types of herp photography exactly opposite from the way you've described it. Action shots, like the ones above, are where a zoom is least useful. The reason is that for these kinds of pictures you've already got your plate full trying to keep the subject in focus and sharp. You really don't have time to quibble over precise framing. That comes later using the crop tool in your processing software.

Also it is the kind of photos above "where you might have the opportunity to take over a 100 shots hoping for the perfect photograph". The Garter Snake with the fish is a prime example. I watched Garter Snakes catching fish in drying pools for a number of hours over the course of one summer. They never stopped moving! I shot thousands of frames, almost all of which were deleted for one technical or aesthetic reason or another and ended up with only a few dozen frames I was satisfied with.

I think the 300mm vr you are considering would be an excellent choice for a longer lens. The Garter Snake was shot with the previous, (non-vr), version with the 1.7x teleconverter attached.

On the other hand, what most people think of as "typical" herp photography, (posed, "field guide" type shots, or insitu where the animal is not moving), is precisely where a zoom lens makes the most sense. You have all the time in the world to compose the picture in precisely the way you want and using a zoom facilitates that, especially if you are using a tripod. This is a low volume kind of photography.

ImageGorum_150421_1095_1_2_3_4 by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

If someone is taking 100 shots hoping for one good one when doing this kind of photography they might want to reevaluate their whole approach to photography.

One piece of advice on the tripod, don't skimp. Bite the bullet and buy a really good one the first time.

100% agree about the need for more time to shoot. If I were offered the choice between some fancy new piece of expensive gear I've been lusting after, or loads of time to go out and use what I already have I would take the time. Hands down, no debate!
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Lenses

Post by chrish »

I'm not a huge fan of zooms for herps, but my main lens for birds and wildlife is a sony 100-400 SSM.

I wasn't familiar with the new Sigma 18-250, but now that I've done some research I would have to say it might be a best buy. It is a lot of lens for $350. On a canon camera that is 28-400. Sure, it isn't as sharp as a fixed focal length lens or a $1200 zoom, but it is only $350 and it is sharp enough that you wouldn't know the difference.

Macro goes down to 1:2.9 which is enough to fill the frame with a small frog. Have to put this on my "in case I have $350 sitting around" list.
Post Reply