What lens for canon FF for rhinopias

[Chris Kippax 43]

Hi All

 

What lens would be a good choice for Rhinopias on a Canon full frame body? I have yet to see one but from research around 20cm seems to be a large specimen? I have the 100mm macro but also a 50mm F1.4 USM. The minimum focus distance for that is 1.5ft. Do you think the 50mm would be an option or the working distance would mean shooting through too much water and effect options for composition.

 

Thanks,

Edited January 27, 2018 by Chris Kippax

[Tom_Kline 141]

You should be able to shoot an 8"/20cm long subject using 100mm on FF if the vis is reasonable. I would not even bother with the Canon 50 1.4 for underwater work. I have used the 50 Canon macro which is OK except for its stone age AF.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Tom_Kline

[Chris Kippax 43]

Thanks Tom!

[dreifish 361]

I love shooting Rhynopias with a fisheye lens (+1.4x teleconverter where possible) in a small dome, getting up close and personal. CFWA for the win

 

http://www.andreiv.com/Photography/The-Smaller-Things-in-Life/i-9TCsS77/A

Edited January 27, 2018 by dreifish

[Chris Kippax 43]

Thanks Andre thats an option I had not considered

[sharky1961 2]

Hi Chris,

I love the Nikon 60mm Micro ( Canon or Sigma 500 mm Macro for Canon shooters) for shooting rhinopias over the 100 mm macro, especially if viz isn't good..

[Chris Kippax 43]

Maybe a better question would be what is a good 50mm macro lens with a fixed lens length for a canon FF. All the 50mm macro lens I can find change lens length with focus point. The Canon 50mm macro 2.5 is shown below.

 

 

[Tom_Kline 141]

Great point. Here is where Nikon beats Canon infinity to zero.

This above opinion is based on actual use as I own both the Canon 50/2.5 and Nikon 60 AFS. As well, the Canon 50 2.5 only focuses to 1:2 whereas the Nikon focuses to 1:1 without extending.

 

 

Maybe a better question would be what is a good 50mm macro lens with a fixed lens length for a canon FF. All the 50mm macro lens I can find change lens length with focus point. The Canon 50mm macro 2.5 is shown below.

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Tom_Kline

[Chris Kippax 43]

The Sigma is also a no go!

 

[TimG 62]

Hey Chris

 

Not with a Canon, but here are a couple of examples of shooting Rhinopias with a 105mm macro Nikon on a DX sensor - so the equivalent of 160mm. I was probably about 4-5 feet away. Viz wasn't brilliant.

 

I also like using a Tokina 10-17 on DX with a TC1.4. CFWA can set the critter nicely against a background.

[Luko 29]

On a FF camera, I would say the 15mm SIgma would be pretty good.

On the other I also tried a 60mm into a dome that helps you keep a wider angle

I have shot rhinos with many lenses but only DX format see how they go :

 

With a 100 mm, this is the most useless lens I hate to see a rhinopias when I have my 100mm on. I had three in different ones in Ambon while I was stuck with a 100mm.

 

 

 

Now this is shot with a 60mm and flatport, Better for geting close in Alor

[

 

 

This one with a60mm flatport was more comfortable to shoot but the juvenile rhino from Padang Bai was much smaller, thus the lens totally appropriate

.

 

 

This one with a 60mm and Zen minidome

 

 

 

For the wider angles, this is a classic combo with a Tok 10-17 behind a Zen Minidome. I was lucky with 4 rhinos on this dive in Padang Bai.

 

 

Same dive using the Tok 10-17:

 

 

I sometimes used a Tok 10-17 with a Kenko 1,4 CFWA adaptor behind a Zen minidome, it does a great job for this size of fish, but the AF can be painful. .Here in Ambon.

 

 

And a very special combo using the Inon "insect eye" lens, In Tulamben Bali.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Luko

[Undertow 31]

Personally I think its a bit much to write-off your 50/1.4 non-macro. Seems like a subject you could easily shoot with that lens, even if you can't focus down to macro levels.

 

So you won't get any closeup face or eyeball shots, sure. Does it mean you can't shoot less magnified images? Of course not.

 

Indeed a macro is more versatile but we often must work with what we have. I think both your 100 macro and 50/1.4 would be options.

[Tom_Kline 141]

Keep in mind that a 50mm f/1.4 lens will have 0.45 to 0.5 meter minimum focusing distance (about 1.5 feet). This means that at minimum focus distance your 20cm long subject will appear small. To focus closer one needs to use a diopter lens which will degrade the image as well as narrow the focusing range. If you are using a dome port all bets are off without a diopter since the bare lens can only focus beyond infinity. If you want to bring an f/1.4 lens on a dive trip (e.g. to shoot topside available light shots) a wide angle such as a 35mm f/1.4 would be better because they typically focus closer.

 

 

Personally I think its a bit much to write-off your 50/1.4 non-macro. Seems like a subject you could easily shoot with that lens, even if you can't focus down to macro levels.

 

So you won't get any closeup face or eyeball shots, sure. Does it mean you can't shoot less magnified images? Of course not.

 

Indeed a macro is more versatile but we often must work with what we have. I think both your 100 macro and 50/1.4 would be options.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Tom_Kline

[Luko 29]

Everybody writes about the lens magnifying characteristics, but keep in mind that the eniironment where the rhinopias often lives is quite murky so your only chance to get a good photo is to get very close though still wide enough to put 20cm into a frame.

This is why I support the Tok 10-17 option or for a FF the Sigma 15mm+1,4 Kenko muliiplier..

Edited February 3, 2018 by Luko

[Chris Kippax 43]

Thanks Luko

You put forward a very solid argument.

[tursiops 81]

I'm trying to translate all the FF talk to my Olympus 4/3. Apparently my 30mm macro will be my best bet for Rhinopias? My other choices are 60mm macro, 12-50 (43mm in macro setting), 14-42 with a CMC, and a WWL in front of the 14-42 for CFWA. Going to Ambon for Rhinopias, want to do this right!

Edited February 3, 2018 by tursiops

[Undertow 31]

Keep in mind that a 50mm f/1.4 lens will have 0.45 to 0.5 meter minimum focusing distance (about 1.5 feet). This means that at minimum focus distance your 20cm long subject will appear small. To focus closer one needs to use a diopter lens which will degrade the image as well as narrow the focusing range. If you are using a dome port all bets are off without a diopter since the bare lens can only focus beyond infinity. If you want to bring an f/1.4 lens on a dive trip (e.g. to shoot topside available light shots) a wide angle such as a 35mm f/1.4 would be better because they typically focus closer.

 

Below is the Nikon 50/1.4 on full frame at min focus, 1.5'. The canon 50/1.4 focuses a hair closer at 1.48'. This would be magnified by 33% UW behind a flat port.

 

Just assessing wether a lens he already owns (!!) would be usable and to me it absolutely would. You don't need to fill the frame with the animal to get great shots, as evidenced in the above posts. I'm not referring to what lenses he could buy, everyone has covered that already.

 

Regarding murkiness - I've shot plenty of images at greater than 1.5' focus distance in very murky water. Its really not far! Easily manageable for great shots. (BTW focus distance is measured from the sensor).

 

I think its a bit unfortunate to often see on these forums "Your lens is useless UW, get lens A, B or C" instead of "Your lens would work with X limitations, if you wanted to spend the money, lenses A, B or C would be ideal".

 

Has me tempted to pop my 50/1.4 on and go find a 20cm subject UW.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

Edited February 3, 2018 by Undertow

[Undertow 31]

Here I've gone one step further. My Ikelite strobe is 18cm long. Shot at min focus 50/1.4 on full frame. Again, would be magnified 33% UW behind a flat port.

 

Forgive the shallow DOF - seems there's something wrong with my lens and it will only shoot wide open at 1.4.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Undertow

[Chris Kippax 43]

Thanks Undertow

The reason I suggested the 50mm 1.4 was because it could make it work with existing ports I already own. Luko would you say 20cm was the largest of the adult Rhinos you saw or were many much smaller?

Edited February 4, 2018 by Chris Kippax

[Luko 29]

Thanks Undertow

The reason I suggested the 50mm 1.4 was because it could make it work with existing ports I already own. Luko would you say 20cm was the largest of the adult Rhinos you saw or were many much smaller?

 

I would say most rhinos I have seen were from 15cm up to 25cm.

The smallest juvenile was probably 4cm but in this case you have to be really lucky : it's so difficult to spot, the guide saw it while we were looking for seahorses, he almost put his hand on it.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Luko

[Paul Kay 62]

The Canon 60mm EFS macro will work on a Canon FF body if used with the 12mm MkII Extension tube. It will allow for focus up to about 40cm which may be a little tight for your needs. The Canon 50 macro is a good little lens too and despite its slower mechanical focus, works very well in many situations (how did we work with such lenses on film?). The 50 macro is optically good and myself and my wife have both used it successfully on subjects such as jellyfish in temperate waters which are somewhat murky. Either may work for you, and my only reservation on the 100 macro is that it can sometimes be fussy and hunt a little in my experience.

[Tom_Kline 141]

The Canon 60mm EFS macro will work on a Canon FF body if used with the 12mm MkII Extension tube. It will allow for focus up to about 40cm which may be a little tight for your needs. The Canon 50 macro is a good little lens too and despite its slower mechanical focus, works very well in many situations (how did we work with such lenses on film?). The 50 macro is optically good and myself and my wife have both used it successfully on subjects such as jellyfish in temperate waters which are somewhat murky. Either may work for you, and my only reservation on the 100 macro is that it can sometimes be fussy and hunt a little in my experience.

 

Not enough justification for me to buy the 60 EFS lens IMHO. I have (at least it was cheap!!) and have used the Canon 50 macro under water as well but that is no justifcation for Canon not having brought this lens up to date. Meanwhile how many different Canon 300/2.8 lenses have come??

[Paul Kay 62]

Not enough justification for me to buy the 60 EFS lens IMHO. I have (at least it was cheap!!) and have used the Canon 50 macro under water as well but that is no justifcation for Canon not having brought this lens up to date.

Its tricky because the design ethos of the 60EFS and the old 50 macro is quite different. The 50 macro works well on extension tubes at reasonable magnifications whilst the 60EFS is already soft on the 25mm tube. The optical design is quite different with different characteristics. So whilst the 50 certainly should be updated, the newer design of the 60 makes it easier and faster to autofocus and it does so without the lens changing length. My guess is that the 50 macro could all too easily be discontinued without a similar replacement because it represents 'old' technology. Which will be a pity because the new design of macro lenses does not lend itself to increased magnification well with extension tubes.

 

Perhaps I should add that there is hope. Sony's 50/2.8 FE macro recently released is of the older style design so perhaps Canon might just do something?

Edited February 6, 2018 by Paul Kay