[dms]

I previously posted following about photographing from in an airplane (through the plastic windows)--but same suggestion also applies for aquariums--except now it is not glare so much as it is to avoid reflections (of yourself and camera).

I would suggest you take a thin black cardboard (maybe letter size) and cut out a hole for the lens to fit in, Have the black side facing out--and if you want you can try putting a step down or up ring on after the cardboard--to hold it in place (I never did this and it worked out fine). You should have the lens close to the glass wall of the aquarium.

[Docrwm]

Wider is better for such events and having the CPL for your 10-20 seals that deal. I'd add the 50/1.8 for more reach and speed. Enjoy the time with your son.

[TaoMaas]

I don't know... a polarizer did me pretty good the last time I was at the aquarium in Monterey. It won't eliminate reflections, but it can help reduce them as long as you know how a polarizer works. Then again, the previous poster seems to be essentially from Monterey, so that opinion is quite useful (i.e. getting up to the glass and not shooting straight on). That advice would help a polarizer work better, too.

I'd always heard that artificial light isn't polarized, so a polarizing filter will have no effect. So it depends upon how much natural sunlight is coming into the aquarium areas. Otherwise, you're just adding the equivalent of an ND filter to your set-up and that's not something you want to do in an aquarium.

[Oldbayrunner]

I knew the 50 would probably be the highest recommendation. I don't really love it. Totally possible that is because I haven't used it enough. My polarizing filter for my 10-20 just arrived today but I don't have ones for any of my other lenses yet.

What other advice can anyone offer? Thanks!!!

Get step up rings for your other lenses to fit your new polarizer mm. That saves money and saves space in ones bag.

PS. Sometimes reflections can render a cool effect, especially of kids expressions watching the fish.

---

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 01-21-2015 at 07:33 AM.

[rws]

I recently went to my local aquarium (Dallas) with just my 50/1.8 and 35/2.4. One thing I did not factor in was that the aquarium here has a large tropical atrium on the top level with tiny monkeys and birds that can be quite high or far away. I really wish I brought something like the 18-135 for the top level.

[nomadkng]

my experience with aquariums and lenses is this: bring your whole bag!

why?
1- outdoor exhibits are much like a zoo setup which requires a medium to long telephoto. my Sigma 100-300 gets a lot of use.
2- there is always one or two exhibits that need something in the 50-100mm range (Sigma 50-150)
3- indoor, the lighting is horrible and flash is not an option. you need a VERY close focusing WIDE (20-24ish) angle for 50% of these shots (Sigma 10-20)
4- indoor, the lighting is horrible and flash is not an option. you need a VERY close focusing normal (30-50ish) angle for the OTHER 50% of these shots (DA40 or FA50 Macro though 40 is usually little better because of its wider FoV)

I have been to the Monterey, Seattle and Long Beach Aquariums. I have been to Scripps in San Diego as well as World Wildlife Zoo and Aquarium here in Phoenix.
I find myself using 3-4 lenses every time.

Two more bits of advice:

Every lens I use has a lend hood and I press that lens hood right up against the glass. It completely eliminates surrounding reflections and helps minimize the distortion of all the curved glass. The lens hood also keeps me from banging my front element against the glass.

Don't rely on AWB in your camera. There are many many different forms of lighting used and you need to play with WB nearly as much as exposure. I found out the hard way, some of the aquarium lighting is IMPOSSIBLE to correct in Camera Raw so you must dial it in the best you can on site. I have an absolutely awesome Emperor Penguin image from the Monterey Aquarium that I just cant get the red tint out of.

[emalvick]

I'd always heard that artificial light isn't polarized, so a polarizing filter will have no effect. So it depends upon how much natural sunlight is coming into the aquarium areas. Otherwise, you're just adding the equivalent of an ND filter to your set-up and that's not something you want to do in an aquarium.

I think it depends on the location of the light source. Artificial light isn't polarized based on a couple of items. From one light, it of course scatters everywhere, so it is a bit multidirectional whereas by time the sun hits the earth, it's light rays are parallel. However, if you are shooting at a window and there is a distinct reflection, that light is often more parallel and the polarizer can work.

The second thing, which reduces the effectiveness of a polarizer more is that as soon as you have multiple lights, you have even more unpolarized light. But a polarizer can still be effective.

Anyway, I never had huge issues, but I don't mind shooting at a high-ISO. Yes, aquariums are dark, and a faster lens can be useful. I do think I used my Tamron 17-50 more effectively in the past, but the 18-135 worked just fine, and looking back at all the photos I've taken at the Monterey Aquarium, I was often shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 to get the depth of field I want. The biggest problem I've ever had is locking focus on the animal as the often curved windows and their glare are often what the camera wants to focus on.

As far as the darkness goes, shooting in an aquarium is a bit like shooting in the evening too. There will be dark areas, but most of the time you are shooting into a lit up tank. You are usually exposing for that, which often means that the exposure isn't as challenging as if you are shooting in a dark room. The key is being aware of what your exposure should be. You are usually going to have to use some Exposure Compensation to get your subject exposed the way you want.

I think the real key is to choose a lens (or two) and practice up front and get something you feel is going to work. It worked best for me to use M-mode and once I had the exposure set, I just left it with adjustments here or there for lighting, etc.

[BrianR]

I'd vote for these three:

35 2.4
50 1.8
10-20

The wide one being the most useful. I wouldn't bother with a polarizer, but I suppose it might be handy if you're after shots of people + the tank interiors, ymmv. Get as close to the glass as you can, this will not only block out reflections but scratches and crud on the glass will be mostly out of focus this way. Rubber lens hood helps. Make sure you can't touch the front of your lens to the glass/plastic of the tank. Shoot with the camera perpendicular to the glass for the least distortion. Accept that a high iso will probably be necessary, and that WB will be tricky (raw is grand).

Also handy in a crowd of children:

-cloth on hand to clean fingerprints and ice cream off the glass
-lens caps to keep on when not actively shooting (protects lens from ice cream)
-earplugs
-tylenol/aspirin

I was at the newish aquarium in Toronto last summer. I found a DA14mm most useful and the crowds unbearable. It would have been tons of fun if 90% of the people weren't there.

[TaoMaas]

I think it depends on the location of the light source. Artificial light isn't polarized based on a couple of items. From one light, it of course scatters everywhere, so it is a bit multidirectional whereas by time the sun hits the earth, it's light rays are parallel. However, if you are shooting at a window and there is a distinct reflection, that light is often more parallel and the polarizer can work.

The second thing, which reduces the effectiveness of a polarizer more is that as soon as you have multiple lights, you have even more unpolarized light. But a polarizer can still be effective.

True, but in a case like this, where a person is shooting an aquarium, it becomes a trade-off of whether the 2-stop loss of light is worth it. I've found it's much better...and easier, given the usual crowds at aquariums...to press the lens against the glass, negate the need for a polarizer, and shoot as high of a shutter speed as possible.

[asp1880]

A fish eye!!!

I've actually tried a fish eye lens at the aquarium. It does one thing no other lens will do, namely capturing both the kid's face and the fish in the tank at the same time as both parties stare at each other in amazement (the fish not so much...).

It's not such a stupid suggestion afterall. Here's a throwaway shot that I normally wouldn't show anyone but it illustrates my point. It's taken with the DA 10-17 at the widest setting.



Just place the glass glass down the center of the frame and it will come out straight in the picture.

Regards,
--Anders.

[robthebloke]

50mm f1.8, stopped down to f4-f8. I work in an office which has a load of uv illuminated fish tanks in, and have been experimenting with a bunch of da/fa lenses, and so far the 50 is by far the best. The fa limiteds are out of the question - the purple/blue fringing is just too extreme. Most of the da primes do a decent enough job, but the 50's focal length is the best bet IMHO.

[allexinwonderland]

Well I might have ended up with one keeper. Chaperoning eight year old boys does not lend itself to a productive shoot.

[MadMathMind]

A polarizing filter won't reduce the kind of reflections you will get at the aquarium. It will just cut out a bunch of light. If you can get up to the glass, use a rubber lens hood and get up against the glass. If you can't, eliminate your reflection by not shooting straight on. Doing so can reduce sharpness somewhat but it is better than the reflection.

I concur that a polarizer isn't the magic bullet it seems. The loss of light is a killer too. It's usually so dark in there that you will be shooting at large apertures and high ISO because you need high shutter speeds that the light just doesn't allow.

This tip of a rubber hood seems genius. I've shot in a few aquariums and not gotten much to be proud of. Seems like a good fix.

[emalvick]

True, but in a case like this, where a person is shooting an aquarium, it becomes a trade-off of whether the 2-stop loss of light is worth it. I've found it's much better...and easier, given the usual crowds at aquariums...to press the lens against the glass, negate the need for a polarizer, and shoot as high of a shutter speed as possible.

I'm not saying that can't work... but I'm guessing it depends on the aquarium. In Monterey, it's rare that I can even get close to the glass to press the lens up against it.

I also think we often forget how good and adequate our Pentax cameras (these days almost any brand) can be at a high ISO. Anything is an option. My wife actually reminded me that last time I went I actually kept the polarizer off the lens most of the time and only added it a few times.

---------- Post added 01-23-2015 at 10:40 AM ----------

I concur that a polarizer isn't the magic bullet it seems. The loss of light is a killer too. It's usually so dark in there that you will be shooting at large apertures and high ISO because you need high shutter speeds that the light just doesn't allow.

This tip of a rubber hood seems genius. I've shot in a few aquariums and not gotten much to be proud of. Seems like a good fix.

Actually, the fact that we are often shooting through glass makes it difficult to get the types of shots to be proud of. The lighting is bad, crowds are everywhere, the glass is often scratched, fingerprinted, etc. It's difficult to get anything superb. That's for sure.

[MadMathMind]

Actually, the fact that we are often shooting through glass makes it difficult to get the types of shots to be proud of. The lighting is bad, crowds are everywhere, the glass is often scratched, fingerprinted, etc. It's difficult to get anything superb. That's for sure.

You forgot that the contrast will be horrible no matter what you do. Fixing in post is a challenge, even. It always come out that bad.