Macro Photo thread

[DibblyDobbler]

A couple of recent efforts with 100D + 100mm.Had a quick play with the Raynox 250 tonight (I have both 150 and 250 now) - it gives loads of magnification! It's really not necessary unless the bug is teeny.




Grasshopper by Mike Smith, on Flickr




Forest Shield Bug by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

That looks pretty decent to me

I would not claim any great expertise on the clip on macro lenses but the Raynox are very very good - if you have a decent zoom lens you can get loads of magnification and plenty of detail. I paid about £30-£40 for the DCR150 so it's not a huge expense if you are interested. Tricky bit is getting the lighting right - most macro togs use flash and various combinations of diffusers.

Thanks Mike! Do you think the 150 is the best bet then? Is the DOF very very shallow on the 250 and is it subsequently harder to use?

[Crusoe]

yes, DOF of the 250 is very small, depending on the lens you are fitting it to but typically 5mm or less. Have a new 100 prime 2.8 macro with a ring flash that I'm playing with so will upload some later with the raynox on as well. Very easy to use and great value but it might not fit with the ring on the front as well.

[ddarno]

DibblyDobbler said:

CExcellent David

Ichneumon Wasp maybe ?

Thanks DD, gives me something to go and lookup.

[Crusoe]

Candle Wick by Alan Tait, on Flickr

Zoom in for the detail, very sharp with the ranox 250 and the 100 prime.

Edited by Crusoe on Tuesday 8th September 12:29

[Crusoe]

Wolf Spider by Alan Tait, on Flickr

[V8Wagon]

Nice shots! The detail is amazing. So the big question is do I go for the 150 or the 250?

My gut feeling is that if I got the 150 I'd always wish I'd got the extra magnification of the 250.....or will the 250 infuriate me?

Not having a dedicated Macro lens mine is likely to end up on the end of my 55-250 Canon Lens.

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

Nice shots! The detail is amazing. So the big question is do I go for the 150 or the 250?

My gut feeling is that if I got the 150 I'd always wish I'd got the extra magnification of the 250.....or will the 250 infuriate me?

Not having a dedicated Macro lens mine is likely to end up on the end of my 55-250 Canon Lens.

It's a good question. I started with the 150 (mounted on a 100mm) and recently picked up a 250 also - I think it really depends what you are going to shoot: for larger stuff like bees the 150 is plenty (on a 100mm anyway), the 250 actually seems like overkill. I'm sure I recall finding out the mag on a 55-250 + Raynox a while back... let me look...

[DibblyDobbler]

DibblyDobbler said:

V8Wagon said:

Nice shots! The detail is amazing. So the big question is do I go for the 150 or the 250?

My gut feeling is that if I got the 150 I'd always wish I'd got the extra magnification of the 250.....or will the 250 infuriate me?

Not having a dedicated Macro lens mine is likely to end up on the end of my 55-250 Canon Lens.

It's a good question. I started with the 150 (mounted on a 100mm) and recently picked up a 250 also - I think it really depends what you are going to shoot: for larger stuff like bees the 150 is plenty (on a 100mm anyway), the 250 actually seems like overkill. I'm sure I recall finding out the mag on a 55-250 + Raynox a while back... let me look...

Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2873698 - seems like a 150 on a 55-250 is plenty unless you want to shoot the really small stuff. I would probably start with a 150 and see how you go

PS - lighting is very very important also, what flash do you have ?

[Crusoe]

DibblyDobbler said:

Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2873698 - seems like a 150 on a 55-250 is plenty unless you want to shoot the really small stuff. I would probably start with a 150 and see how you go

PS - lighting is very very important also, what flash do you have ?

Agree, ideally you close up the aperture a bit to get a deeper depth of field on the 250, if you have a prime you have more scope for that than but on a larger zoom you will find lighting becomes an issue. I'd probably invest in a ring flash or similar that you can have on at the front of the lens to allow you to focus rather than only seeing the view when the flash goes off.

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2873698 - seems like a 150 on a 55-250 is plenty unless you want to shoot the really small stuff. I would probably start with a 150 and see how you go

PS - lighting is very very important also, what flash do you have ?

Thanks both for the info. Flash isn't something I'd thought of to be honest. I've just got the small 90EX that came with the EOS M. It is tiny and pretty rubbish tbh.

Hmmm. Maybe the 150 it is then. I'm not sure it'll satisfy me though. I really do want to be able to capture the texture of the eyes, hairs etc.

[Crusoe]

V8Wagon said:

Thanks both for the info. Flash isn't something I'd thought of to be honest. I've just got the small 90EX that came with the EOS M. It is tiny and pretty rubbish tbh.

Hmmm. Maybe the 150 it is then. I'm not sure it'll satisfy me though. I really do want to be able to capture the texture of the eyes, hairs etc.

The spider above was just the 100 prime macro without the raynox. With it on you would have to get closer and 2.5x zoomed in the body would have filled most of the frame. If you get the lighting right you should be able to get in more than close enough with your current lens.

[LongQ]

A very quick and dirty test.

Canon 600D, Old FD fit 70-210 f4 lens, reversing ring to mount the lens to the body back to front.

Shot with some dismal window light (from the right) resting the camera on a kitchen worktop and setting a rough focus using Live View and the 10x zoom.

Due to the light the lens was set to f4 so the narrow DoF means the flat subject is not consistently in focus - in fact maybe none of it is but for a quick experiment it satisfied my curiosity.

Light, including for focusing, will be extremely important.



You may have worked out that the subject is a kitchen sponge.

Based in that and some attempts to capture a tiny (dead) fly in order to assess magnification I reckon it's giving something like 10x on the 600D.

Cost?

The reversing ring was £12.95.

The lens I have have for about 10 years. I didn't pay much for it back then so probably about £30-40 now for a decent one or similar.

Fully manual of course so control of the aperture is readily available.

I reckon it can do better with good light - and if I remove the protective UV filter before fitting the lens!

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2873698 - seems like a 150 on a 55-250 is plenty unless you want to shoot the really small stuff. I would probably start with a 150 and see how you go

PS - lighting is very very important also, what flash do you have ?

Thanks both for the info. Flash isn't something I'd thought of to be honest. I've just got the small 90EX that came with the EOS M. It is tiny and pretty rubbish tbh.

Hmmm. Maybe the 150 it is then. I'm not sure it'll satisfy me though. I really do want to be able to capture the texture of the eyes, hairs etc.

The 90ex should do you fine if you can rig up some suitable diffusion - suggest you have a look over on Talk Photography - here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-.... There's a guy who uses a paper plate! Works very nicely. Trial and error is the way forward

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

A very quick and dirty test.

Canon 600D, Old FD fit 70-210 f4 lens, reversing ring to mount the lens to the body back to front.

Shot with some dismal window light (from the right) resting the camera on a kitchen worktop and setting a rough focus using Live View and the 10x zoom.

Due to the light the lens was set to f4 so the narrow DoF means the flat subject is not consistently in focus - in fact maybe none of it is but for a quick experiment it satisfied my curiosity.

Light, including for focusing, will be extremely important.



You may have worked out that the subject is a kitchen sponge.

Based in that and some attempts to capture a tiny (dead) fly in order to assess magnification I reckon it's giving something like 10x on the 600D.

Cost?

The reversing ring was £12.95.

The lens I have have for about 10 years. I didn't pay much for it back then so probably about £30-40 now for a decent one or similar.

Fully manual of course so control of the aperture is readily available.

I reckon it can do better with good light - and if I remove the protective UV filter before fitting the lens!

That looks very respectable LQ! Get yourself a paper plate diffuser and you have the ultimate extreme budget extreme macro setup

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

That looks very respectable LQ! Get yourself a paper plate diffuser and you have the ultimate extreme budget extreme macro setup

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

I have used the lens reversed before - but without the reverse mount ring - just holding it in place in the body aperture - and although powerful, it was, shall we say, haphazard. This looks like it could be very consistent.

If the paper plate diffuser is for the on-camera flash (in the true spirit of "budget" ) I think there could be a problem from shadows given the physical length of the lens.

However I have a collection of flash units and a handful of wireless remotes so rigging something for a planned setup should not be a problem. I can envisage some sort of plate based solution for diffusion requirements and as a reflector although perhaps small plastic bowls might also work and offer improved durability for a similar outlay when used with the flash heads .

For ad-hoc "wandering around" attempts a rather different approach will be required. Or maybe a cheap ring flash ....

http://srb-photographic.co.uk/macro-photography-li...


Clearly one would have reservations about the lack of a "name" but at the price if they work at all one might feel they were "justified" expenses.

Meanwhile I also have a "big stopper" to investigate.

A whole new world (or two) of possibilities - more fun that one can shake a monopod at ....

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

I have used the lens reversed before - but without the reverse mount ring - just holding it in place in the body aperture - and although powerful, it was, shall we say, haphazard. This looks like it could be very consistent.

If the paper plate diffuser is for the on-camera flash (in the true spirit of "budget" ) I think there could be a problem from shadows given the physical length of the lens.

However I have a collection of flash units and a handful of wireless remotes so rigging something for a planned setup should not be a problem. I can envisage some sort of plate based solution for diffusion requirements and as a reflector although perhaps small plastic bowls might also work and offer improved durability for a similar outlay when used with the flash heads .

For ad-hoc "wandering around" attempts a rather different approach will be required. Or maybe a cheap ring flash ....

http://srb-photographic.co.uk/macro-photography-li...


Clearly one would have reservations about the lack of a "name" but at the price if they work at all one might feel they were "justified" expenses.

Meanwhile I also have a "big stopper" to investigate.

A whole new world (or two) of possibilities - more fun that one can shake a monopod at ....

I would give the cheapo LED 'flashes' a miss - I tried two different ones recently and they are just not powerful enough. You'd be better off with a normal flash unit and jury rig up a diffuser - try that link to TP I posted up there a bit ^^^.

PS - Unless you are shooting in broad daylight I would personally go Little Stopper rather than Big

[DibblyDobbler]

Bee Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr




Tachinid Fly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

I would give the cheapo LED 'flashes' a miss - I tried two different ones recently and they are just not powerful enough. You'd be better off with a normal flash unit and jury rig up a diffuser - try that link to TP I posted up there a bit ^^^.

PS - Unless you are shooting in broad daylight I would personally go Little Stopper rather than Big

Both of those are constant light sources rather than flash so potentially useful for lighting the subject for focus tasks.

However I certainly have reservations about them, especially the one with stalks since it is intended for mirrorless cameras according to the blurb.

I have a .6 ND, a .9 ND Grad and a Circ-Pol all at 77mm screw on size. Plus a circ-pol and a hard grad that reports itself as "Half Colour" in a 58mm size. So that lot, together with a 58mm to 77mm stepping ring gives a few options to play with although not without the risk of some quality issues given the number of glass layers the light will pass through.

Knowing my luck the chances are that limiting the available light will not be a problem and some giant sun sized flash may be more welcome next week. We will see. I may need to revert to the G11 which has an ND built in and is fitted with an adapter that allows the use of 58mm filters. On the other hand it only goes to a 15 second exposure and no bulb mode.

[ddarno]

Hoverfly - Melanostoma by David Arnold, on Flickr


Common Darter Dragonfly by David Arnold, on Flickr


Common Darter Dragonfly by David Arnold, on Flickr


Common Darter Dragonfly by David Arnold, on Flickr