Macro Lens for Reptile Photography (very low light)

[olijenkins]

Hi all,

I hope I'm not repeating anything here but I did not see any similiar questions elsewhere.

I am looking to upgrade my standard Canon 800d kit (18-55mm) set up for my next herping (reptile spotting) trip. I am after a macro lens and a suitable flash (or two) to accompany it.

As my Camera is a cropped sensor I beleive a 60mm focal length would be spot on for staying at the correct distance from my subjects whilst keeping the light in the frame. My main concern is that most of my photos will be taken at night in rainforests so I need to be sure the lens can focus quickly.

The lenses I am looking at include;-

Tamron 60mm SP AF F/2.0 Di-II LD IF
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

I would be interested to know your thoughts on these lenses and how well they will perform in extremely low light.

As for flashes I'm looking at the Godox TT685 II. At £85 I cannot see anything that will compete with its features.

Any help/tips would be most appreciated!

Oli

 

[RAZKY]

Hi all,

I hope I'm not repeating anything here but I did not see any similiar questions elsewhere.

I am looking to upgrade my standard Canon 800d kit (18-55mm) set up for my next herping (reptile spotting) trip. I am after a macro lens and a suitable flash (or two) to accompany it.

As my Camera is a cropped sensor I beleive a 60mm focal length would be spot on for staying at the correct distance from my subjects whilst keeping the light in the frame. My main concern is that most of my photos will be taken at night in rainforests so I need to be sure the lens can focus quickly.

The lenses I am looking at include;-

Tamron 60mm SP AF F/2.0 Di-II LD IF
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

I would be interested to know your thoughts on these lenses and how well they will perform in extremely low light.

As for flashes I'm looking at the Godox TT685 II. At £85 I cannot see anything that will compete with its features.

Any help/tips would be most appreciated!

Oli

Unless they're only 1" long or so, you do not need a macro lens for reptiles.

 

[olijenkins]

Unless they're only 1" long or so, you do not need a macro lens for reptiles.

@RAZKY thank you for the reply. Macro lenses are good for reptile photography particularly close up shots of the head etc. Atleast, that is my understanding as I used to get far better results with my 50mm prime lens back in the day.

On that basis do you have any preference over the two lesnes suggested?

Many thanks

 

[Thiophilos]

Take note of the working distance when selecting macro gear. It is the distance from the front of the lens (without hood) to the subject.

Longer working distances reduce the chances of spooking the creature you are photographing, and give more options for lighting. These lenses have longer focal lengths and get very expensive at the longest FLs. They are heavier and the longest ones (180mm-200mm) autofocus slowly. If you are using on-camera diffused flash (which I recommend), the longer FL lenses require bigger diffusers for the same soft light quality(*) and that can be inconvenient.

Shorter working distances mean a greater chance of bothering the subject, and danger if the subject is venomous or has a temper like a hornet. The lenses will be shorter in focal length, and can cast a shadow on the subject. They are usually much cheaper than the longer lenses. It is easier to build and handle flash diffusers because they can be smaller.

The depth of field is the same regardless of focal length, but longer lenses give much nicer (blurrier) backgrounds.

So as is usual in photography, there are a bunch of compromises and tradeoffs. You have the chance to select the best option for you.

In dark areas, auto-focusing can be challenging, but modern cameras are usually pretty good with that. The lens can affect focus speed, but I don't think it will affect focus accuracy. You might have to go to manual focus. And regarding the autofocus/manual focus debate, IMO if you are shooting hand-held, usually neither can ensure critical focus. For larger subjects like herps you will probably be fine, though.

(*) The softness of the light depends on the size of the diffuser as the subject sees it. The greater the angle subtended at the subject, the softer the light. This assumes the diffuser is properly configured and is evenly lit.

 

[olijenkins]

@Thiophilos thank you for this. I am actually considering a slightly longer focal length now with and off camera flash.

Main query is still trying to choose a suitable lens for dark conditions.

 

[Rickbb]

I like my 105 macro, but with using a flash do you really need to pay lots more for that extra F stop?

 

[olijenkins]

I like my 105 macro, but with using a flash do you really need to pay lots more for that extra F stop?

Hi @Rickbb ,

The lenses I am looking at are not particularly expensive it's either £120 for the Tamron, or £220 for the Canon. Both are macro.

Will only be grabbing one of course!

Following much research over the last couple of days I am leaning towards the Canon as apparently it does have a faster and quieter autofocus than the Tamron.

Oli

 

[Strodav]

I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll share what I do in low natural light situations. I usually have my camera set to manual, open aperture, lowest shutter speed possible and auto ISO. I'll take a shot and check the histogram to make sure the exposure is about right, then I use 2 different techniques to reduce noise. 1) lower the shutter speed by a stop then take a sequence of about 5 shots holding the camera as steady as possible. Hopefully one of them will be sharp. The do it again until you get a lower noise shot you like taking a longer sequence of shots every time. 2) Hold down the shutter button to take a sequence of higher ISO shots. Take into your post processing software. Start aligning and averaging the sharp shots. Every time you average 2 shots you cut the effective ISO in 1/2. I've taken the ISO from 12,800 down to ISO 800 perhaps ISO 400 (thats 4 and 5 stops) using this technique with my D850 and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro.

Of course, using a diffuse flash is a better choice when conditions allow.

 

[Thiophilos]

I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll share what I do in low natural light situations. I usually have my camera set to manual, open aperture, lowest shutter speed possible and auto ISO. I'll take a shot and check the histogram to make sure the exposure is about right, then I use 2 different techniques to reduce noise. 1) lower the shutter speed by a stop then take a sequence of about 5 shots holding the camera as steady as possible. Hopefully one of them will be sharp. The do it again until you get a lower noise shot you like taking a longer sequence of shots every time. 2) Hold down the shutter button to take a sequence of higher ISO shots. Take into your post processing software. Start aligning and averaging the sharp shots. Every time you average 2 shots you cut the effective ISO in 1/2. I've taken the ISO from 12,800 down to ISO 800 perhaps ISO 400 (thats 4 and 5 stops) using this technique with my D850 and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro.

Of course, using a diffuse flash is a better choice when conditions allow.

I agree with taking many shots at low shutter speeds when shooting in available light. There is a good chance one will be sharp. I've had good luck with this, and image stabilization helps with this. In astronomy, a variant of this technique is called "Lucky Imaging".

Astronomers also take multiple images and stack them to reduce noise. As far as I know, noise reduction is according to the square root of the number of images. Thus you need 4 shots to reduce the noise by a factor of 2 (= one stop).

 

[olijenkins]

I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll share what I do in low natural light situations. I usually have my camera set to manual, open aperture, lowest shutter speed possible and auto ISO. I'll take a shot and check the histogram to make sure the exposure is about right, then I use 2 different techniques to reduce noise. 1) lower the shutter speed by a stop then take a sequence of about 5 shots holding the camera as steady as possible. Hopefully one of them will be sharp. The do it again until you get a lower noise shot you like taking a longer sequence of shots every time. 2) Hold down the shutter button to take a sequence of higher ISO shots. Take into your post processing software. Start aligning and averaging the sharp shots. Every time you average 2 shots you cut the effective ISO in 1/2. I've taken the ISO from 12,800 down to ISO 800 perhaps ISO 400 (thats 4 and 5 stops) using this technique with my D850 and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro.

Of course, using a diffuse flash is a better choice when conditions allow.

Hi this is very helpful. I use a similiar process in low light to get to the right settings (my ISO is always on auto generally). I suppose the key difference being i've not used a macro lens and an off-camera flash in low-light scenarios yet, so wanted to make sure I source a lens suitable for it.

Still a novice with post production though, I've never put the time into it and just settle for the RAWs that are taken. I'll get my head round it one day.

All the gear no idea!

Oli

 

[Strodav]

I agree with taking many shots at low shutter speeds when shooting in available light. There is a good chance one will be sharp. I've had good luck with this, and image stabilization helps with this. In astronomy, a variant of this technique is called "Lucky Imaging".

Astronomers also take multiple images and stack them to reduce noise. As far as I know, noise reduction is according to the square root of the number of images. Thus you need 4 shots to reduce the noise by a factor of 2 (= one stop).

You are technically correct, but this paragraph from the attached article is interesting. Sometimes there is a difference between the math and visual perception.

Noise Reduction By Image Averaging

www.cambridgeincolour.com

"... Two averaged images usually produce noise comparable to an ISO setting which is half as sensitive, so two averaged images taken at ISO 400 are comparable to one image taken at ISO 200, and so on. In general, magnitude of noise fluctuation drops by the square root of the number of images averaged, so you need to average 4 images in order to cut the magnitude in half."

 

[Thiophilos]

You are technically correct, but this paragraph from the attached article is interesting. Sometimes there is a difference between the math and visual perception.

Noise Reduction By Image Averaging

www.cambridgeincolour.com

"... Two averaged images usually produce noise comparable to an ISO setting which is half as sensitive, so two averaged images taken at ISO 400 are comparable to one image taken at ISO 200, and so on. In general, magnitude of noise fluctuation drops by the square root of the number of images averaged, so you need to average 4 images in order to cut the magnitude in half."

Right, but visual perception is hard to measure and it is well known that the mind is easily fooled.

 

[Golem]

I like my 105 macro, but with using a flash do you really need to pay lots more for that extra F stop?

Thaz a good point especially if the camera or the flash has a low light AF assist illuminator.

 

[jeffashman]

Consider the Venus Laowa 90mm 2X. It isn't overly expensive and while it is manual, that's not a bad thing when it comes to macro photography. 90mm gives you a bit of reach, and the f/2.8 gives you lower light capability. Take a look at our macro forum to see what folks are using. I have the Sigma 105mm, but am strongly considering replacing it with the Venus.

 

[greybeard]

Just get a ring light. It will do the job and cost you a lot less