Macro Photo thread

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

100D, 100mm with Raynox - lighting was MT24-ex with various diffusers.

Fly Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Edited by DibblyDobbler on Thursday 17th September 18:42

Wow! Man what an ugly critter. I reckon this new hobby of mine might just give me nightmares! So I'm guessing that is with the Raynox 250 Mike?

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

Wow! Man what an ugly critter. I reckon this new hobby of mine might just give me nightmares! So I'm guessing that is with the Raynox 250 Mike?

I can't remember! Might have been the 150 - I was swapping between them trying to decide which I prefer

[V8Wagon]

It may be some time before I can post a pic that's worth seeing. Grabbed a quick 15 minutes earlier out in the garden with the Tamron on the EOS M and I rapidly realised there is a lot more to this Macro than you think.


EDIT : 12 hours later and after many, many blurred, dark shots later I have managed to get one that looks half decent....

Okay, it's only a fly. I got a few bees, and a few of those white butterflies that flutter around the garden but this was the sharpest so far.

It is hard though....hand holding seems to be impossible so I've had to use the tripod. Then it's like fishing...focussing on one spot and waiting and waiting for something to land.

Not sure if this is for me tbh.


Macro Messing by André Jardinière, on Flickr

Edited by V8Wagon on Saturday 19th September 15:49

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

It may be some time before I can post a pic that's worth seeing. Grabbed a quick 15 minutes earlier out in the garden with the Tamron on the EOS M and I rapidly realised there is a lot more to this Macro than you think.


EDIT : 12 hours later and after many, many blurred, dark shots later I have managed to get one that looks half decent....

Okay, it's only a fly. I got a few bees, and a few of those white butterflies that flutter around the garden but this was the sharpest so far.

It is hard though....hand holding seems to be impossible so I've had to use the tripod. Then it's like fishing...focussing on one spot and waiting and waiting for something to land.

Not sure if this is for me tbh.


Macro Messing by André Jardinière, on Flickr

Edited by V8Wagon on Saturday 19th September 15:49

Good effort! You need to get going with a diffused flash though - makes it much easier. No way I could be bothered using a tripod - you should be able to get around 1/200 + f14 + iso 100, handheld with flash on.

Stick at it for a while - it will get easier with practice and maybe a bit of a tweak to your technique

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

Good effort! You need to get going with a diffused flash though - makes it much easier. No way I could be bothered using a tripod - you should be able to get around 1/200 + f14 + iso 100, handheld with flash on.

Stick at it for a while - it will get easier with practice and maybe a bit of a tweak to your technique

Thanks a lot. Yeah, I tried the flash. The 90EX sits very low and with the length of the lens and adaptor I'm not sure how effective it will be. I'll carry on though...I got better as the day went on. The more I look at this pic, the happier I am with it (for now )

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

I can't remember! Might have been the 150 - I was swapping between them trying to decide which I prefer

So, which one gets the vote?









And how do you know?

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

DibblyDobbler said:

I can't remember! Might have been the 150 - I was swapping between them trying to decide which I prefer

So, which one gets the vote?

And how do you know?

So far I have been using the 150 far more often than the 250 - the 150 gives up to almost 2x mag - ie a scene width of around 1.5 centimeters so unless the bug is really small it is plenty (and I don't tend to shoot really small stuff!)

[DibblyDobbler]

Hoverfly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

Bee Profile by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[LongQ]

Your revised body and lens strategy seems to be working out rather well DD.

Can't fault the lighting either. Opalescent copier paper and an LED torch? Or something more exotic?

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

Your revised body and lens strategy seems to be working out rather well DD.

Can't fault the lighting either. Opalescent copier paper and an LED torch? Or something more exotic?

Thanks LQ

Yes the Raynox are an absolute revelation - amazing bang for buck. The lighting is by MT24-ex with Stofen + bespoke diffusers + a layer of thin packing foam. It's pretty good but not quite there yet...

[V8Wagon]

So back to square one. The Tamron went back for a refund so I'm on the look out for something else.

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

So back to square one. The Tamron went back for a refund so I'm on the look out for something else.

Oh - what was the issue? Or just not working for you?

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

Oh - what was the issue? Or just not working for you?

The odd clicking noise when focussing just wasn't right.

[DibblyDobbler]

V8Wagon said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Oh - what was the issue? Or just not working for you?

The odd clicking noise when focussing just wasn't right.

Hmm. The Canon 100 mm is excellent- that's what I'm using

[V8Wagon]

DibblyDobbler said:

Hmm. The Canon 100 mm is excellent- that's what I'm using

Yep, that's top of the shopping list I think. It's your lighting (and expertise ) that I can't buy!

[Crusoe]

Still a bit hit and miss with lighting and narrow depth of field on the raynox 250 but starting to get some reasonable detail.

[url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/83452242@N06/21682764943[/url]

Edited by Crusoe on Wednesday 28th October 13:30

[GravelBen]

First macro in ages for me.

DSC_1666 by Ben, on Flickr

DSC_1717 by Ben, on Flickr

DSC_1725 by Ben, on Flickr

[rich888]

DibblyDobbler said:

LongQ said:

DibblyDobbler said:

I can't remember! Might have been the 150 - I was swapping between them trying to decide which I prefer

So, which one gets the vote?

And how do you know?

So far I have been using the 150 far more often than the 250 - the 150 gives up to almost 2x mag - i.e. a scene width of around 1.5 centimeters so unless the bug is really small it is plenty (and I don't tend to shoot really small stuff!)

Hi DibblyDobbler, sorry to resurrect this thread but I've been tinkering around in the back garden taking close up pics using the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and now realise that I can't get close enough without some sort of macro lens, I called in to my local camera shop yesterday who suggested some sort of telescopic adapter which was approx 40mm long which was split into three rings depending upon the magnification needed, but the cost was approx £165, I've been trawling through past threads on PH and found this macro thread. You mention using a Raynox adapter in either 150mm or 250mm which is substantially cheaper than the extension or telescopic rings (not sure what the correct name is), do these Raynox adapters fit the Canon range of cameras or are there different varieties available, I have a 700D, and does the auto-focus still work or is it case of switching to manual focusing.

Sorry for all the questions but the Raynox does seem to offer an inexpensive way into macro photography, just don't want to go and order the wrong diameter adapter for my camera!

[DibblyDobbler]

rich888 said:

DibblyDobbler said:

LongQ said:

DibblyDobbler said:

I can't remember! Might have been the 150 - I was swapping between them trying to decide which I prefer

So, which one gets the vote?

And how do you know?

So far I have been using the 150 far more often than the 250 - the 150 gives up to almost 2x mag - i.e. a scene width of around 1.5 centimeters so unless the bug is really small it is plenty (and I don't tend to shoot really small stuff!)

Hi DibblyDobbler, sorry to resurrect this thread but I've been tinkering around in the back garden taking close up pics using the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and now realise that I can't get close enough without some sort of macro lens, I called in to my local camera shop yesterday who suggested some sort of telescopic adapter which was approx 40mm long which was split into three rings depending upon the magnification needed, but the cost was approx £165, I've been trawling through past threads on PH and found this macro thread. You mention using a Raynox adapter in either 150mm or 250mm which is substantially cheaper than the extension or telescopic rings (not sure what the correct name is), do these Raynox adapters fit the Canon range of cameras or are there different varieties available, I have a 700D, and does the auto-focus still work or is it case of switching to manual focusing.

Sorry for all the questions but the Raynox does seem to offer an inexpensive way into macro photography, just don't want to go and order the wrong diameter adapter for my camera!

Hi Rich. No trouble at all

Macro extension tubes are one way to do it - £165 seems like a heck of a lot though! You can pick up Kenko tubes for around £50/£60 if I recall correctly and they work fine. There are also cheaper ones (ie £5ish) but they don't allow you to set aperture so are of limited use IMHO.

The Raynox lenses are my preferred method - a year ago I would have scoffed at the idea of putting a cheap bit of glass in front of a nice lens but there's no arguing with the results - see above. They are also very easy to use - your 50mm will have a 52mm filter thread I guess and the Raynox will clip on to anything with between 52mm and 67mm (without the need for step up/down rings) so you should be good to go. I would suggest the Raynox 150 as a good starting point - the 250 gives more mag but also less dof - I have both but usually use the 150.

My 2p worth for free - hardest thing to get right with macro is the lighting so this is worth thinking about. Naked flash gives a harsh and unpleasant light so most good macro shooters use some sort of diffusers. Worth looking into if you are keen.

Cheers