|
So after a few days of furiously F5ing the postal service's website my Sigma 150mm macro showed up yesterday. By the time I picked it up it was dark out and I spent the evening getting mostly terribly blurry shots of mundane apartment objects in XTREEM CLOSEUP. I finally jury-rigged a lightbox with my desklamps and managed to snap a few pictures... which I left on my home computer. I've never really shot at f/11 and lower before, the amount of light it takes is ridiculous. The lens is INCREDIBLE, though, and for the money I spent on it very lightly used I'm extremely pleased. Also it weighs more than my flash/camera combined. Time to develop some steady hands.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2010 15:53 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
About using a tripod. I've never done it, it's far too cumbersome. But a good monopod is awesome. It really stabilizes you while also allowing you to do quite a bit of movement to capture moving subjects. I just attach it to the camera and carry it collapsed. I can drop the leg down to shooting level in seconds and be fully stabilized. I bought mine for under $20 a few years ago and it's one of the best purchases I've made for in-the-wild macro photography.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2010 00:42 |
|
I've found that if your tripod has locking legs of the right type, you can convert it into a monopod (albeit a heavy one) by only extending one leg at a time. But I entirely agree that you need to move to get macro shots -- besides the obvious issue of moving subjects, I find that 90% of the time I end up moving the camera, rather than the lens, to stay in focus. It's somehow easier to find that critical point if you're moving the whole camera around.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2010 02:57 |
|
What about a gorillapod? Seems to be quickly adjustable and relatively light / not cumbersome. Definitely a monopod will probably be my next equipment purchase.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2010 05:18 |
|
If you use a reversing adapter the focus ring doesn't really do anything so for scrubs like me moving the camera or subject to focus is the only option.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2010 20:16 |
|
Raikiri posted:
Anyone know of any good flash brackets like that? My lens with hood is ~8 inches long.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2010 22:40 |
|
Thanks for the advice. Using the Raynox was a lot harder than I thought it was going to be. The DoF is really shallow even with a tiny aperture. Here is one of my first attempts:
|
# ? Mar 14, 2010 17:56 |
|
dunos posted:Thanks for the advice. Using the Raynox was a lot harder than I thought it was going to be. The DoF is really shallow even with a tiny aperture. Here is one of my first attempts: Nice. I love getting close up shots of tech stuff.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2010 18:50 |
|
Here's one from a monopoly set I did for shits and giggles. I lit it with bounce flash off the ceiling and it shows. I'm really considering a ring flash.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2010 19:37 |
|
I just built a small light tent the other day. I really have to figure out a better lighting scheme, because I'm getting shadows all over the place. Here's the setup The bulbs are something like 23w (120w equivalent) daylight floodlights. The lamps are 8.5" aluminum cones on clamps. The bulbs are jutting way out of the lamps, which doesn't allow them to reflect at all. They're just too directional, so I have to try and find some bright as hell helical daylight bulbs. A light coming from the top will help with shadows as well and really fill things out. Anyways, here are a few shots I just took. Toy soldiers My [dusty] Pentax K1000 The only magnet letters we have that haven't been chewed by the dog You can see shadows everywhere which must be eliminated if I want to give the idea of an infinite white background. Do you guys think brighter reflective lights as well as a top light will help that out?
|
# ? Mar 14, 2010 21:16 |
|
Try moving the lamp further away from the side panel. The closer it is the more light passes straight through rather than hitting the panel and diffusing. You'll probably have to increase exposure time to compensate for the light loss, but your light will be softer.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2010 03:15 |
|
Just wanted to let you guys know that I'll be happy to take a stab at identifying any of the bugs posted in this thread. Soon it's time for the next Critterquest thread, full of bugs, spiders and other tiny wildlife!
|
# ? Mar 18, 2010 19:44 |
|
I'm waiting for my Canon 100mm f2.8 to show up, should be here tomorrow if all goes well, and this weekend will be full of shooting flowers and bugs if i can get outside ot find some (supposed to rain all weekend, boo)
|
# ? Mar 18, 2010 19:51 |
|
axolotl farmer posted:Just wanted to let you guys know that I'll be happy to take a stab at identifying any of the bugs posted in this thread. Eagerly awaiting this. Weather's been craptacular for weekends here but this weekend looks golden! And I'll be going to South Carolina as well next weekend, time to get out along some river beds.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2010 20:07 |
|
I can't wait, nature macros are 99% of what I do.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2010 23:39 |
|
.
Whoa Now fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 5, 2010 |
# ? Mar 19, 2010 01:21 |
|
Can somebody give me some knowledge about extension tubes vs reversing rings? Can you still use the manual focus with a tube?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2010 14:04 |
|
Yeah you can, I would imagine that the tube provides more versatility. As with the three different adjustable lengths of the tube (the cheap one that I have at least), and being able to adjust focus, there's a lot of different options as to where your tiny sweet spot can be. I would imagine with the lens flipped backwards you only have one possible focus spot, and you have to move around to find it? I don't really know anything about reversing.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2010 14:15 |
|
Whoa Now posted:Yeah you can, I would imagine that the tube provides more versatility. As with the three different adjustable lengths of the tube (the cheap one that I have at least), and being able to adjust focus, there's a lot of different options as to where your tiny sweet spot can be. Yeah that's right. I have a reversing ring cause it was only $4 but I see tubes on ebay for like $7, shipped. With the ring you have to move the camera to focus so being able to use MF would be a big improvement.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2010 14:56 |
|
I'm interested in extension tubes as well. I was thinking of the DCR250 until I realized it would only fit on one of my lenses (50mm 1.8). I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8, and both have filter diameters larger than the max for the DCR's. That said, if I get an extension tube, what lens would it work best with? 70-200 for more working room? I'm sure I'll end up with a macro lens at some point, but until then I would like to at least get my feet wet.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2010 16:25 |
|
nummy posted:I'm interested in extension tubes as well. I was thinking of the DCR250 until I realized it would only fit on one of my lenses (50mm 1.8). I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8, and both have filter diameters larger than the max for the DCR's. Try a step up/down ring?
|
# ? Mar 20, 2010 15:40 |
|
For a ghetto macro/ringlight, I tried shooting through my magnifying work light at work and got decent pictures. Work light similar to what I used http://www.officedepot.com/a/produc...r:referralID=NA Example picture Now it's time to use that Raynox ring I got last week. Stew Man Chew posted:What about a gorillapod? Seems to be quickly adjustable and relatively light / not cumbersome. Definitely a monopod will probably be my next equipment purchase.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2010 02:24 |
|
Yay for waterdrops. Shot with a very simplistic Nikon D60 + kit 15-55mm f3.5 lens with offcamera sb-600. My Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would have been preferable, but it was simply too heavy for the Gorillapod Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Mar 21, 2010 |
# ? Mar 21, 2010 03:26 |
|
Experimenting with my new Nikkor 105mm macro This thread has also inspired me to bust out my old Minolta extension bellows. Hopefully I'll get film developed and scanned in a timely manner for sharing purposes.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 09:16 |
|
I love shooting macro stuff, both insects with a 100mm Canon and super closeups with the 100mm and a reversal ring and a home made lightbox Need to get a flash this year I feel edit: argh pics wont link edit2: fixed, but guy below me has kindly reposted them so I don't want to post them twice Alctel fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 24, 2010 |
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:03 |
|
Alctel posted:<html> You can't post HTML here. However, out of the goodness of my heart I have converted your code. and super closeups with the 100mm and a reversal ring and a home made lightbox (great photos btw)
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:10 |
|
Thanks - I reinstalled my machine and forgot I had a greasemonkey extension that does the conversion for me. Fixed now!Tongsy posted:I'm waiting for my Canon 100mm f2.8 to show up, should be here tomorrow if all goes well, and this weekend will be full of shooting flowers and bugs if i can get outside ot find some (supposed to rain all weekend, boo) Have fun, I want to marry mine. Although its hot new relative, the IS version has me drooling Alctel fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 24, 2010 |
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:14 |
|
These are gorgeous; I don't suppose you took a picture of what your setup looked like? The detail in this is insane, jesus.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:28 |
|
Anyone shooting with the Raynox DCR-250? If so how do you like it?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:30 |
|
That pencil tip is also incredible, the sharpness, Dear The Weather, please be nice in Souf Carolina this weekend. Thanks, your friend Stu.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:30 |
|
Alctel posted:Have fun, I want to marry mine. Although its hot new relative, the IS version has me drooling I had the IS version before, I ended up returning it to the store because I didn't feel like the IS was good enough to justify the 200% premium over a used USM non-IS. But yeah, it's probably my favourite lens that i have now.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2010 19:50 |
|
Phat_Albert posted:Anyone shooting with the Raynox DCR-250? If so how do you like it? I shoot with the Raynox DCR-150 and 250. I use them mostly on my Panasonic FZ8, a 12x superzoom point and shoot. You can even get a 43-49mm step ring and stack them for crazy close macros. I love them, I think they're awesome. They are worth every penny. Some samples. I haven't really messed around with them on my DSLR, since I have a 105mm macro, but the few times I have it's worked fine. Seems to work best in the 70-100mm range. If I were going to use one on a DSLR, I would definitely go with the DCR-150, the 250 is OK, but unforgiving.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2010 00:18 |
|
The longest lens I have is a 55mm, does that make a difference in choosing the 150 or 250.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2010 01:32 |
|
fuzzies
|
# ? Mar 25, 2010 14:03 |
|
MrFrosty, you're rocking the Raynox, no? Whats your preference, 150 or 250?
|
# ? Mar 25, 2010 16:23 |
|
Can't really say, I've never used the 150. I just mounted the DCR-250 on the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and shot this at 55mm. Please excuse the fact that it's not all in focus, it was hard to come at a perfect right angle without breaking out the tripod. Click here for the full 1920x1275 image. Anyway, that's approximately 40 mm on a sensor about 21 mm across, making a magnification ratio of 1:2 on a crop body camera. Not terrible, but not "true" 1:1 macro either. Since the only difference between the 150 and the 250 seems to be the diopter(going by the specs at least), I'd probably go with the 250 if the 18-55 is the longest lens you've got.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2010 18:19 |
|
Tongsy posted:I had the IS version before, I ended up returning it to the store because I didn't feel like the IS was good enough to justify the 200% premium over a used USM non-IS. Oh really? That helps make me less jealous, I thought it'd be great for shooting insects
|
# ? Mar 26, 2010 01:53 |
|
Phat_Albert posted:Anyone shooting with the Raynox DCR-250? If so how do you like it? I did have a pic in my inventory with a DCR-250 on my DSLR. This is a Raynox DCR-250 mounted on a Canon 50mm prime. It's not super close, but this is the range of zoom you'll be getting at 50mm. Crystal loving clear though. Check it in original size for mega detail. Full image It certainly helps that the 50mm prime is razor sharp, but you can see the Raynox doesn't hurt it at all. I also had a shot of a DCR-150 stacked on my Sigma 105mm macro. Also sharp as a razor, and a must see at original size. Full Image
|
# ? Mar 27, 2010 04:52 |
|
I am extremely impressed with the DCR-250 from what I see in this thread, I may have to buy one and stick it on my Canon 100mm since its probably a lot easier than fiddling around with the reversal ring in the lightbox (which is what I do now). I also can't wait till the bugs come out - last year I shot entirely in natural light, but thinking of picking up a flash this year (like a 430ex or something) and then making my own flash bracket.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2010 08:18 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
So I found a little Wolf spider, the first spider of the year for me, for a few comparison shots with my Sigma 105mm macro on my Canon XTi and my Panasonic FZ8, with and without my Raynox Lenses. Pics are a little big, but it shows you the details. The spider is a Wolf Spider (Hogna sp. I think) and was about 3/8" in diameter including legs. First, Sigma 105mm macro on my Canon XTi. And Sigma 105mm with the Raynox DCR-150 on my XTi. Now my Panasonic FZ8 with the Raynox DCR-150 and DCR-250 stacked, zoomed to fit frame (about 4-5x). And last Panasonic FZ8 with the DCR 150 and 250, stacked, and zoomed in all the way (12x). I should note that for the Panasonic FZ8 shots I used a styrafoam bowl as a flash diffuser, it works awesome BTW, as you can see. It didn't fit on my Sigma 105mm lense, and when I tried I broke it in half. Had I made a new one it would have had much better fill flash and the Sigma shots would probably have been much sharper and better lit. I had an uncooperative subject though, so I didn't have time to make one.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2010 04:26 |