
I wasn't really equipped for macro photography, but did the best I could with a handheld "standard" zoom on my EOS 40D
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
I probably should have included more details....This would have to fall under "wide angle macro" (actually closeup). This is with a Canon 17-55IS lens at 17mm. A quick Google doesn't show what the magnification on this lens is at minimum focus distance (and my memory is that this was minimum focus distance). The fish were about two inches long, which would make this showing about a 4 by 6 inch area. I really like the 17-55IS for walkaround shooting, and it can practically take pictures in the dark at high ISO and wide angles, thanks to the IS. But the minimum focus distance isn't very close, which is a significant disadvantage for a closeup lover such as myself!rjlittlefield wrote:Mike, this is an interesting shot. But you know, I have absolutely no idea how big these things are. Even at their longest focal lengths, the three zooms I own for my 300D go down to field widths of 2.5, 4, and 4 inches. Somehow I think I'm probably looking at a lot larger area than that in this picture, but I don't know, maybe these little critters really are only an inch long. What's the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SardineCyclops wrote:Anyone know the diff. between a sardine and a pilchard?