What lens should I choose for my macro shooting?

Is there one lens thart can handle bort fish portaits aswell as shootig pygmy seashorses?

/Jonas

Not really one lens for both, no.

If you want full frame seahorses with your cropped sensor camera, you'll need the Canon 100mm USM and a diopter.

HTH
James

For fish portraits either the canon 60mm or the sigma 50mm is ideal. Both of these lenses will focus as close as 1:1 meaning you can fill the frame with a 22mm subject wich is a very good start for pygmy's as well.

If you need to fill the frame with a smaller subject (such as a pygmy) a teleconverter will give you increased magnification and working distance. You cant take the teleconverter off underwater so you still cant shoot both on the same dive but this way you can use the same lens rather than having 2 macro lenses.

Haha - here we go again. Is the 60mm EF-S a 1:1 35mm EQUIVALENT lens, (meaning you can fill the frame with a 36mm wide subject) or a 1:1 lens? ;-)

Cheers
James

Bad James .... bad

and maby it is not really a 60mm lens but actually a 60mm equivalent lens...

It may be confusing as to how to properly lable the magnification of this lens, but if there really is disagreement over if the FOV at the close focus distance of this lens is 22mm or 36mm, it has to be the dumbest argument I have seen on wetpixel. If there is any doubt that this lens fills the frame with a 22mm object it is very easy to test....But you dont even have to, it's easier than that, all you have to do is read canon's press release.

I can't believe Canon actually used the term "multiplication factor" UGH. And what is a "true" 1:1 magnification ratio? Does that mean 1:1 35mm equivalent, or 1:1. I guess it's better than a "false" 1:1 :-)

Cheers
James

Maybe I can help clear this up. Magnification has nothing to do with focal length or field or view. 1:1 magnification means that objects on the plane of focus of the lens appear on the virtual image at exactly life size. This is a feature of a lens and has nothing to do with 35mm or APS-C or whatever sized sensor/film you happen to be using.

Now, in the case of the 60mm EFS (which has 1:1 magnification), this means that an object that is 22mm across will exactly fill the field of view (since on the virtual image the object will still be 22mm and will exactly fill the APS-C sized sensor). If you were using 4"x5" film, the frame would be exactly filled by an object that is 4"x5".

Now, the likely source of people's confusion is the fact that in order to get an object of 22mm to fill the field of view with a full frame 35mm sensor you would need a lens with magnification of 1.6. That is because you now have a bigger sensor so to fill the field of view with the same object requires greater magnification.

Note that Canon is thus using the term "magnification" correctly. They probably put the word "true" in there to make sure people knew they were using the term correctly and NOT multiplying by 1.6 to reflect the smaller sensor (in which case the true magnification of the lens would have been only 1/1.6 = .625 and only a 35mm object would fill the field of view).

As far as focal length is concerned, the 60mm EFS is a TRUE 60mm lens as marked on the barrel. On a camera with an APS-C sensor this gives it the same field of view (about 21 degrees at infinity focus) as a 96mm lens would have on 35mm. Note that Canon is using both the terms focal length and magnification correctly.

Finally, as an answer to the OP, the above discussion shows that the 60mm EFS is a good lens for both fish portraits and pygmy seahorses. It's a little long for fish portraits (equivalent to 100mm on 35mm) but you can fill the frame with an object that's only 22mm or less than an inch (equivalent to a 35mm lens with 1.6x magnification).

Hope this helps!

Lanier

Hi Lanier,

Good explanation.

When someone says 1:1 - I don't want to have to ask: "Which camera were you using? does it have a 1.5x, 1.25x, or full frame sensor?" in order to figure out how big their subject is.

That's why I like people to say "1:1 35mm equivalent" That way you KNOW that their subject is 36mm across. You don't have to guess whether they were using a canon (22mm) or a Nikon (24mm) or an Olympus (4/3 sensor).

Of course, many people disagree with me on this one, but that's ok. I just want a useful term. Now that there are so many different sensor sizes plain-ole 1:1 just isn't a useful term anymore.

Cheers
James

James. How about call your "1:1 35mm equivalent" just "a 36mm subject"

When you are writing the rules for a macro competition instead of defining macro as magnification >1:5(35mm equivalant). Just say subject <180mm

This way there is no confusion. A 36mm subject is a 36mm subject no matter what camera you are using and no one would ever think otherwise

Ahh! exxelent thanks for the replies.

22 mm will probably do it just fine for me. Ofcourse pygmys can be smaller than that but I think that the 60mm will be a fine start.