Camera & Settings for Tank & Fish Photo's

[Lornek8]

Yeah I looked at 2.8 lenses.. its a disgrace how the price shoots up.. you can pay more for a 10mm prime lens with f1.8 than for a good wide range telephoto.

(P.S. is my sig to big?)

Yes but the results you'll get with the prime lens is so much better than you'd get with the zoom lens. Also try to get the same handheld shot with a wide range zoom as you would with the prime @1.8 and you'll appreciate the difference, that's 3+ stops faster than the average 5.6 zoom. I've still got an old 50mm 1.4 in my bag that gets used for those occasional night-time excursions.

PS: What's shaave?

 

[Skirge]

ah uploaded the wrong sig image lol

Well only had my dslr about 2 months.. got 3 lenses the 18-55 it came with it, the 18-135 I got for £30 its the stock D80 lens I thought it was a bargain at the price. And the 70-300 for that extra zoom.
I do want a 10mm prime but the cost for the amount I would use it..

 

[Skirge]

Test the proper one lol

 

[Lornek8]

10mm fisheye or non-fisheye? Like lighting, you simply cannot substitute for a 10mm lens (non-fisheye). You can use a wider lenses and crop out the middle but you can't stretch the image from a long focal length lens to a wider angle. I do 70%+ of my shooting below 18mm. I like the effects you can get but its a matter of personal style really and the subject matter you shoot (me, mainly landscapes). For me it breaks down to about 70% <18mm, 29%>100mm & 1% macro as a very rough estimate.

 

[Skirge]

Would be non fisheye.. and 80% of my stuff is night landscape, city lights kind of shooting.
Love light reflections on water that kind of thing, long exposure, some bulb shooting.
Its just frustrating to not be able to get the kind of shots I was hoping to get of my fish.

In an ideal world a 10-20mm f2.8 lens would be awesome

BUT would love this fella
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tokina-ATX-116-AF11-16mm-Nikon/dp/B0014Z5XMK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1280283991&sr=8-2"]Tokina ATX 116 PRO DX AF11-16mm F/2.8 Nikon: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517It7vmthL.@@AMEPARAM@@517It7vmthL[/ame]

 

[macvsog23]

Just my few bits on this
If we are talking fish picture’s then a good quality Macro with 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 is almost a must.

Zooms are by the very fact they are "Jack of all trades" going to a substitute for quality Mind you I used a Nikon 35 m/m to 70 m/m f2.8 and it gave good results.

The prime lens v zoom lens is all about the lens elements if your moving glass or plastic to get focus then to move glass or plastic to get focal length at the same time is going to need quality engineering.

 

[Lornek8]

Would be non fisheye.. and 80% of my stuff is night landscape, city lights kind of shooting.
Love light reflections on water that kind of thing, long exposure, some bulb shooting.
Its just frustrating to not be able to get the kind of shots I was hoping to get of my fish.

In an ideal world a 10-20mm f2.8 lens would be awesome

BUT would love this fella
Tokina ATX 116 PRO DX AF11-16mm F/2.8 Nikon: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

I've got the Tokina 12-24 f4 which is an excellent lens. Was my first AF Tokina lens and, compared to what i've seen from Sigma & tamron, the only lenses besides Nikon that'd i'd purchase.

 

[Lornek8]

Just my few bits on this
If we are talking fish picture’s then a good quality Macro with 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 is almost a must.

Zooms are by the very fact they are "Jack of all trades" going to a substitute for quality Mind you I used a Nikon 35 m/m to 70 m/m f2.8 and it gave good results.

The prime lens v zoom lens is all about the lens elements if your moving glass or plastic to get focus then to move glass or plastic to get focal length at the same time is going to need quality engineering.

Couldn't agree more. Though pro zooms (limited zoom ranges & large maximum aperatures & high $$$) are getting exceptionally close to the image quality of primes (if not equal in all practicality), the consumer grade zooms with large zoom ranges cant compare, there again as Mac said, quality is sacrificed for convenience.

 

[Skirge]

If photography was a money maker for me then I could justify blowing fortunes on glass but as it s a hobby and not one I will be able to do forever then I will have to settle for medioca glass with a wider range of functionality.

 

[Lornek8]

If photography was a money maker for me then I could justify blowing fortunes on glass but as it s a hobby and not one I will be able to do forever then I will have to settle for medioca glass with a wider range of functionality.

Understandable. Its always about the choices. Just need to understand the limitiations of the equipment and the tradeoffs that are made for using such equipment. Unfortunately, in photography you sometimes just can't get what you want without the proper equipment. That's the reason there are still those that shoot large format despite all the advances in technology as you simply can't do the swing/shift/tilt combinations with a standard point-and-shoot without some incredibly advanced & complicated photoshop work.

However for the stuff you originally asked about. You need more light & possibly the addition of a set of close-up filters as a substitute for a true macro lens. Then just shoot, shoot & shoot some more. Luckily in the digital age it doesn't cost anything to take pictures.

 

[Skirge]

Thats it.. no cost in filling a memory card.. I found today using the daylight coming through the window and the tank light.. putting up with some glare I did get some good shots.