Which should come first, flash or marco lens?

[myjohnson]

So Chris was over at my house a few hours ago and snapped off some shots for me with his new canon! Hopefully he will post some pictures soon. Anyhow, we were having some issues with the room and overhead lighting.

I read how important it is to have a good/effective flash system. So I'm considering getting the sb 900 or a used sb 800 to be used as a slave to the master on board flash.

Which leads to my question, should I spend my money on a good marco/mirco lens first or should I get a flash and utilize Nikon's CLS?

Thanks in advance guys.

[Zulaab]

I would say get a Macro lens first.. look for something which is a prime ~ 100mm and you should be good to go..

[madugo]

which lens do you have on hand now??
the kit lens that come with your d90? 18-105mm?
if so..get the flash first...which will give you a lot more confidence and make you a lot more comfortable when practicing...
practice to take normal picture first...macro does require some skills, patient, and timing..and some luck...
you gonna get a lot less bad pictures if you have a flash now...which will save you some shutter count...
then when after a few month..you develope some good skills...and you are more familiar with your camera...then go with macro...
by then, you can even sell your kit lens...and get a better walk around zoom lens...
that's the way i would go if it is me...
i bought my flash after 3 lens later...and when i get my hand on the flash...i really wished i should buy the flash first...
those who doesnt need a flash mainly take picture outside of the house...but taking fish pics...u must need one if u want good pics...
like jesper said..prime lens is always better than zoom..
but in your stage...i would def go with flash first..
no matter how many expansive lens u going to get in the future...truth me you will never forget the first lens that you own..
its just like the first date or the first car...lol...give you lots of happiness, and u learn along with the lens, discover more interesting things day by day..

[myjohnson]

I'm getting the kit lens and I already have the 70-210mm.

I would have gotten the body only my brother wanted the kit lens.

I basically been reading exactly what you are saying about taking pictures outside vs. taking pictures of fishes. I was wondering how it actually looks.

Can you post a picture with on board flash only and another picture with overhead flash on the tank?

[76dragon]

I got the same camera last year myjohnson. I too will be getting flash soon. I need alot more practice

[cameracorpus]

Get the flash(s). You can get a fairly inexpensive "close-up lens" which is actually a filter that screws on the lens. They aren't optically perfect, but they do OK You can get them on ebay for about $30 for a kit with varying powers, usually +1, +2, and +4. You just need to know the filter thread diameter of your lens. Usually 58mm for "kit" lenses or the old consumer lenses, although 55mm and 52mm are out there. It should say on the front of the lens. You can have a lot of fun playing with them for $30 vs. spending a grand on a lens and then wishing you'd got something else. Lots of folks dismiss these as crapola, but there have been books written on macro by folks that never owned a real macro lens.

And speaking of Ebay, I've probably been burned once or twice in 1000+ purchases of camera gear. The stuff is durable, and it takes a lot to damage it. There are a ton of great sellers on Ebay. Now, I wish I could say the same for musical instruments......

Camera equipment is just like anything else. You can spend as much as you want. I have more prize-winning photos from my old Canon S3is, an advanced point and shoot, then I do from my pro gear. The winner of Pop Photo's landscape picture of the year used an old Canon D60, a camera body that I just got rid of because it was "outdated". Having something in your hand to take the picture is more important than the gear itself.

I took some photos of cichlid1409's tanks the other day. BIG difference in the photos where Mike handheld a second flash. Night and day.

[jeebus]

I say get the macro. The key to taking pictures of fish is ample lighting combined with a quick shutter. My opinion also is that fish look best in natural light. Using a flash will get you there without the large aperture but the results will never be the same.

You need a lens with the largest aperture to let in as much of the natural lighting that the fish look best in. Only on rare occasion will I see a flash based picture of a fish that looks good, and that's only because the flash caught the colors just right, and the picture was taken at just the right angle to penetrate the glass. That's going to be the biggest issue you have - is having your complex, offset, and diffused flash setup angled just right so that no matter where you take the picture from, plus no matter where the fish is when you snap the shot, that everything aligns to get the right lighting.

All that work, or you can just get a macro and have the freedom to move around freely, capture the fish from any angle, and catch them at their most natural and most beautiful state. Go with the macro first.

[madugo]

i will try to take some sample for you if i have time today..

[ssrprelude]

I say get the macro. The key to taking pictures of fish is ample lighting combined with a quick shutter. My opinion also is that fish look best in natural light. Using a flash will get you there without the large aperture but the results will never be the same.

You need a lens with the largest aperture to let in as much of the natural lighting that the fish look best in. Only on rare occasion will I see a flash based picture of a fish that looks good, and that's only because the flash caught the colors just right, and the picture was taken at just the right angle to penetrate the glass. That's going to be the biggest issue you have - is having your complex, offset, and diffused flash setup angled just right so that no matter where you take the picture from, plus no matter where the fish is when you snap the shot, that everything aligns to get the right lighting.

All that work, or you can just get a macro and have the freedom to move around freely, capture the fish from any angle, and catch them at their most natural and most beautiful state. Go with the macro first.

What do you consider natural light in a fish tank? I have 500 watts of light over my tank and Thai has about the same if he fires his MHs.

[jeebus]

Natural light is whatever light you have over the tank. I'm not referring to any certain color, temperature, shade, or spectrum. The "more" natural light over your tank, the better. Just look at Quoc's old set up to see.

[madugo]

ok thai...
here goes..
i will explain a little more along with 3 sets of pic...kinda tired today..so did not want to chase the fishes around with some heavy gears...so i just took 2 of my zoa frags..
first set is with EX 580 II with bouncer, second set with on board flash, 3rd with no flash...all same body and lens...notice the canon macro got no IS...
When u look at the pics..it may not be thattt big of difference...but when u look at 100% crop...u can tell a lot of difference...
some people may think that going flash will give you a un natural look.. but with the right setting and a little after capture adjustment with software, you can really get the natural look also...
i included EXIF info on all pics..so you can see what i mean..these are just some sample pics i randomly snapped with AF...i am sure you will get better pics if you play with it a lot and different flash settings... notice the exif info on the pic with 580II, i could go with F5.6 or F8 in above 1/500s and iso 200....and those are all -2EV..which will give you a lot easier time to catch on fish...because of the a lot faster shutter speed...and also you can go with lower iso...which will give you a lot less noises...so if you dont use flash...you have to push the iso around 800 or up...and shutter speed around 1/20..sometimes even 1/5s...just making everything a lot harder...if you get the IS lens...its gonna be easier...but not a lot...plus you have to always go with larger aperture...so the nikon 100mm macro F2.8..more than likely you will always use 2.8 when you take pics without flash..but when lens are wide open to their max aperture..they are always not the sharpest... the sharpest point of the lens should be one level smaller than the max aperture...so the macro lens should be sharpest in 4.0 or 5.6...plus when u go 2.8...its gonna be less sweet points...but more depth....hope that doesn't confuse u man..and i may be wrong on some things...

580II:



on board:



no flash:

[myjohnson]

Natural light is whatever light you have over the tank. I'm not referring to any certain color, temperature, shade, or spectrum. The "more" natural light over your tank, the better. Just look at Quoc's old set up to see.

I will be using the flash as a wireless slave and have it placed over the tank.

[myjohnson]

ok thai...
here goes..
i will explain a little more along with 3 sets of pic...kinda tired today..so did not want to chase the fishes around with some heavy gears...so i just took 2 of my zoa frags..
first set is with EX 580 II with bouncer, second set with on board flash, 3rd with no flash...all same body and lens...notice the canon macro got no IS...
When u look at the pics..it may not be thattt big of difference...but when u look at 100% crop...u can tell a lot of difference...
some people may think that going flash will give you a un natural look.. but with the right setting and a little after capture adjustment with software, you can really get the natural look also...
i included EXIF info on all pics..so you can see what i mean..these are just some sample pics i randomly snapped with AF...i am sure you will get better pics if you play with it a lot and different flash settings... notice the exif info on the pic with 580II, i could go with F5.6 or F8 in above 1/500s and iso 200....and those are all -2EV..which will give you a lot easier time to catch on fish...because of the a lot faster shutter speed...and also you can go with lower iso...which will give you a lot less noises...so if you dont use flash...you have to push the iso around 800 or up...and shutter speed around 1/20..sometimes even 1/5s...just making everything a lot harder...if you get the IS lens...its gonna be easier...but not a lot...plus you have to always go with larger aperture...so the nikon 100mm macro F2.8..more than likely you will always use 2.8 when you take pics without flash..but when lens are wide open to their max aperture..they are always not the sharpest... the sharpest point of the lens should be one level smaller than the max aperture...so the macro lens should be sharpest in 4.0 or 5.6...plus when u go 2.8...its gonna be less sweet points...but more depth....hope that doesn't confuse u man..and i may be wrong on some things...

Sweet pictures. Thanks for the info!

Side note: you need to frag me off some zoas bro!

[madugo]

lol..wait till they get a little more colonized then come pick what u want...
in the mean while...i need to learn how to frag first...lol..

[cichlidchic]

ok, though i'm not a Nikon gal myself (i shoot canon), my professor once told us in class he would buy all of us a tube of super glue to glue our onboard flashes closed, thats how much hated them. they really are not a good indicator of a flash. i would say honestly, it's going to depend alot on your subjects. what do you plan to shoot? is this for your fish, family, sporting events, dog next door, fireworks etc...? because i have found more times i needed a 50mm macro than times i've needed my flash honestly. using the abient light in a room is tricky and takes practice, but unless you are going to go shoot outdoor night time weddings, i'd lean towards the macro lens, just based on what i've needed. now, i would say that you will most likely need a tripod if you are using just aquarium lights with a 100mm macro, because the sheer camera shake will unnerve you. thats just my two cents. determine your primary goal for either, and decide that way. A flash will not help you THAT much for fish honestly. additionally, if you are still not sure, borrow one from someone that has one, and see. you can also get really good deals at houston camera exchange. went there and got my 50mm F/1.8 canon AF lens this week for 46 bucks. your ISO also can effect the picture. for example in the pix below, look at the fringe of the zoa's in the first pictures. the 580 brings out more of the brown tonalities in the size pic we have to look at (of course clicking on it to expand it) but the natural light, the ones provided, bring a touch more blue/green tint to the fringe. the brown is a light thats 10k bouncing off something you are most likely looking at through 15-20k bulbs. thats just my take on it. for all i know, they could in fact be brown skirted zoas, and the non-flash is giving them an unnatural bluegreen tint.

BTW madugo, what are the beautiful zoas in those pix? the first in each set. i'm setting up a salt tank, and am still in my researching phase. :)