What lens for canon FF for rhinopias

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,

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.

Thanks Tom!

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

Thanks Andre thats an option I had not considered

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..

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.

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.

 

 

 

The Sigma is also a no go!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

Thanks Luko

You put forward a very solid argument.

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!

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

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.

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?

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.