Macro Confusion

Here are some 50mm + 13mm tube examples. All shot with a tripod and fully stopped down to f22:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Wouldn't the canon 100mm macro work, since the closest focusing distance is 1ft? I may get both the 100mm macro and 50mm f/1.8 II - you think that combo would cover their purpose? The extension tubes is also another interesting possibility, I suppose.

You guys are being a great help, and I thank you.

A 100 mm macro would be a very good choice for the near end of things. You'll get a better working distance (be further back from the fish) than with the 50 at the same magnification. You may need to pay some extra attention to lighting, though, for close-up work like this. You'll need off-camera lighting from at least two directions to get a well-lit fish without reflections off the glass or the water. Flash would be best to minimize heat build-up.

The fish are very well lit, but the reflection thing could be a problem. Ya can usually see a reflection of me/the camera in the picture if you look hard enough (or sometimes you don't have to look hard). Here's an example from about a year ago, taken with like a small 2MP camera:

The reflection thing can be taken care of by using a polarizing filter - you can see some examples here.

A black drape around the camera and lens between you and the tank will also help in keeping down the reflections.

I'm also considering getting a macro lens, as I seem to be doing quite a few closeups of flowers, and i'd like shots of insects too. What would a good lens be if I want to take photos of things that range from the size of an ant to the size of a flower? I know that's a pretty big range, so i'll say err towards the smaller size of that rather than the larger.[/LIST]

Does this help ?

Yep, thanks, it gives me enough information to work stuff out myself. btw you're on 666 posts right now!