|
Nailing a photo when all you have are two lenses stuck together with electrical tape is one of the more satisfying things I've experienced... Bootleg Macro Fun #3 by PresidentMerkinMuffley, on Flickr
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Not shot any macro for a while but the CCTV lens I bought for my GF3 came with some extension tubes so I had a quick go: 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Merkin Muffley posted:Nailing a photo when all you have are two lenses stuck together with electrical tape is one of the more satisfying things I've experienced... What is this?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Some utterly fantastic shots in this thread!. I'm looking into getting a decent Macro lense for my Sony A300 (I know, not one of the Big Two but it was a good deal). After trying a local camera shop, where the guy didn't give me any coherent advice, I thought i'd ask you guys. Looking for a something in the price rage of up to £300, mainly for bug/flower shooting or any other small surface with an interesting texture. I'm distinctly amatuer so anything that easy to use is preferable, just wondering if anybody has experience with a Macro lense for the body or anything thats compatable with it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:Some utterly fantastic shots in this thread!. Check if your local shops have a Minolta 100/2.8 laying around, it's an amazing piece of glass. There are three versions: original (also called 'old'), RS (restyled) and D (digital). Aim for the D but you'll do great with the RS too (I had one). Personally I'd avoid the old version (unless it's a killer deal), the focus ring is too narrow for my taste. 100mm does require some skill and steady hands but it gives you a narrower background and a larger working distance (16cm with the Minolta!). If you want to play it safe, look for a 50mm. Great for flowers but you might frighten some critters as you close in. The Minolta 50/2.8 is super sharp and also comes in three flavors. Careful with Minolta lenses, though, as some sellers seriously overprice them. Sometimes it's actually cheaper to buy the Sony ones. Optically they're the same, it's just a rebrand. Those are my top choices but if none of them work out, check back and we'll talk Tamron and Sigma. seravid fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
I have no idea how US prices translate to GBP, but Sigma and Tamron both make their macro lenses in Sony mounts. You could also look for a used minolta mount lens, something like this: http://www.keh.com/camera/Minolta-Maxxum-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MA08999035884J?r=FE edit: ^^^^ or listen to this guy since he actually knows the system and I'm just guessing ^^^^
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for the replies, i've been having a nosey around online and it seems the 100m lenses are all too expensive for me to justify them, however the 90mm lenses like the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 and also the 50mm lenses are within my price range, although I cant find any Minolta that arent vastly inflated. Would the Tamron/Sigma/Sony 90mm/50mm ones be sufficant, or is there a particular brand I want to avoid? EDIT: Threw in one of my terrible attempts at a Bee photo for some content beyond advice begging. 
THRILLED 2B HERE fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:Thanks a lot for the replies, i've been having a nosey around online and it seems the 100m lenses are all too expensive for me to justify them, however the 90mm lenses like the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 and also the 50mm lenses are within my price range, although I cant find any Minolta that arent vastly inflated. Would the Tamron/Sigma/Sony 90mm/50mm ones be sufficant, or is there a particular brand I want to avoid? As I said, you can't go wrong with either Sony or Minolta, but price might be a issue. The Tamron 90/2.8 is probably the most popular macro lens in the ~100mm range, so in case you're not bothered by the 11cm working distance (deal-breaker for me, but maybe not for you) go right ahead, it's a great lens. The Sigma 105/2.8 is good too, but a tad inferior (optically) to the Tamron, IIRC. You probably wouldn't notice the difference in real life, though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
I have a used Tamron 90mm on my D800 and have been happy with it thus far. Got it from KEH for about $300 USD. The working distance is a bit short compared to the MF Nikon 105 with extender I was using before, but the brighter viewfinder image more than makes up for it. Quality seems very good--I use those 36 megapixels to full effect and crop in a LOT without much issue. Do you have any kind of flash? That'll also make a pretty huge difference.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
The Tamron is a great lens, I used one for quite a while when I had a Canon. The working distance is shortish but still usable (certainly easier than the GF3 I'm using atm).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
I dont have a hotshoe or remote flash at the moment but I am making a small lightbox, i'll pickup a seperate flash as well. I should have probably mentioned I have a 70-300mm Tamron with a Macro function, I just cant seem to get the definition I would like and it also seem to suffer from a lot of chromatic aberration. A large portion of this is most likely me fumbling my way through things, I was kinda hoping it would partly be the glass so I could throw a little money at the issue. Swinging heavily towards the 90mm Tamron at the moment, i'll pick it up in the next couple of days and see what difference it makes.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
I received the Hakuba L-H1 flash bracket and a macro rail recently so I thought I would give focus stacking a try. Turned out ok, I probably needed to use smaller increments since there are a few blurry spots. stacked_bug by anveo, on Flickr Crappy camera phone shot of the setup  C360_2012-05-21-12-50-46 by anveo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
 Macro Cherry by Tarradax, on Flickr I finally got my long-awaited 105mm f/2.8 Micro lens, this is my first attempt at macro ever. Taking this shot made me ridiculously happy, any advice is more than welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
Can someone just confirm if what I suspect focus stacking to be is actually correct, i.e. multiple exposures of the same composition with each exposure being at a different depth of field, then merged in photoshop?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Dalax posted:Can someone just confirm if what I suspect focus stacking to be is actually correct, i.e. multiple exposures of the same composition with each exposure being at a different depth of field, then merged in photoshop?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:What is this? Condensation on a scratched-up plastic cup.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
So I got into this on a whim about a week ago when I realized that extension tubes were a viable option and cheapass ones were only 12 dollars. Sortof wish I got Zeikos ones with electronics for 60 something so I didn't have a huge pain setting aperture, but whatever, this was a much more reasonable option than a dedicated lens and I thought about it for about 10 seconds before clicking buy on Amazon. Rather enjoying it, and have since ordered a reversing ring and a lens coupler to mess around with as well, though I'm not sure if they'll really do me much good with the equipment I have, but they were cheap too so not too concerned. (If anyone has any experience with any of these and a T3i/Kit 18-55/Canon ef-s 55-250 let me know. May also get the 50mm 1.8 in the not too distant future) Sortof wondering what is the average aperture some of you guys are using for some of your shots though, as I'm finding it a bit difficult to get shots with comparable DOF or even just as crisp as a lot of you even in direct bright sunlight. Mostly looking at fly sized bugs > small/medium flowers for size range, though I've been torturing myself trying to get a velvet mite in focus. I'm usually running around with 2-3 tubes and the 55-250 so I don't have to get directly on top of critters to get a shot. I did find an old vintage flash I can use until I save up for one though, so that may be of some assistance even though I don't have a bracket yet. On that subject, what would I lose out on going with a Yongnuo over say an 430 exII? Besides about $150. The flash would also be used for general purpose photography. And so this isn't just a wall of words and questions, here's a 3 shot focus stacked picture of a fly. 55-250, 3 tubes, natural light. (I was going to upload this directly but was afraid it would turn out huge. How do you put timg on uploads?) 
Ninja Toast! fucked around with this message at 16:34 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
The only thing you really lose by going with the non-canon flash is all the fancy auto metering flash stuff. For macro it probably wouldn't be a detriment, but it may slow you down a little for general photography depending on what you're doing. Even the vintage flash should be pretty helpful--I can't imagine doing most of the really close up stuff without some sort of additional light. The working distances are close enough that the flash doesn't have to be amazingly powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
I thought it would be too but I just went out to try it and it wont fire in liveview mode...is there a setting I can change for that? It works otherwise, but it's a lot easier to focus on really small things in liveview. Ahem: "In order to get non-Canon or non-Canon compatible flashes to work with Liveview active you have to go into the menu and set Silent Mode to Disable. When you have a Canon flash in the hotshoe, the camera does it automatically. Unfortunately this is not an option on the Digital Rebels." Crap. Ninja Toast! fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Huh, that's lame. I tend to use the viewfinder because it's much more responsive on the D800. Looks like you'll be doing the same!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Crossposted these from the Critterquest tread in GBS. I don't know much about bugs, but I had a nice time shooting them this weekend. Horrible with names, so feel free to identify them. This one pretends to be a wasp so it doesn't get eaten.  Don't know what this is, but it liked being photographed.   Dragonly that just hatched, cocooned, popped or whatever it is called. Wings were not dry or enflated yet so it couldn't fly and I got so close with other shots that you can count the hairs on its head.  May Bug out in June.  Friendly spider waving at all the goons while hugging an eggsack 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Super cliche shot
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
I bought a macro lens for my medium format camera, it even can do 1:1 magnification. Anyway, just been using a desk light with an adjustable arm to get the light there, but it's not super bright so most of my exposure times are in the 1/2 to 1/15 second range. I'd like to get some sort of flash bracket so I can take this bad boy outside and see what I can find.    
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Super cliche shot I really like that line of in-focus fabric. There are few other shots in this thread with a similar line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr Luckily, there are only two right now- a male and a female. They are more interested in protecting the nest versus fighting me off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
I don't know if it has been mentioned here or not but for those who like shooting creatures I recommend checking out the critterquest thread. Pretty cool place with a few entomologists (or people who very well could be!) who will gladly help you ID any odd creatures you might come across. To contribute, some random recent stuff:    
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
 Kief made large thanks to one of those snap on dealies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
 Cool little guy. Never seen one before.  This fellow has had a rough life. If anyone knows where the missing legs are, let us know.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
As I am poor, I don't have a macro lens, I have some extension tubes. Really thinking about springing for one of those ring flashes, as my on-board one is pretty wimpy. So, the only passable macros I've gotten so far have been long exposure ones since I lose this crazy amount of light with the tubes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Picked up a Yongnuo 560II speedlite, and a 52mm to nikon mount so that I can stick my pentax 50mm f/1.4 directly onto the body, and I love this combo.  DSC_0236.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0225.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0217.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0290.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0206.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Wish I could get a little more DoF with it, but hard to beat the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
powderific posted:
This is an agricultural province. Even the ants are farmers.  SD 101 12 by Execudork, on Flickr  SD 101 13 by Execudork, on Flickr I'm going to have to put some effort in and get some proper macro shots, rather than just snapshots with my old Vivitar zoom that goes to 1:2. I've got a set of extension tubes for my old Minolta X-700, but I find them very difficult to use. Unlike a proper macro lens, turning the focus ring makes little difference, the entire range of possible focal distances is pretty narrow - like a couple of cm. Am I doing something wrong, or is essentially one (and only one) working distance a feature of extension tubes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Moving the camera back and forth to focus is pretty much par for the course even with normal with macro lenses—you're not doing anything wrong and it's something you'll get used to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Shooting the MP-E without a tripod is a bit hard... Ganglia by Sam Tellman, on Flickr  Fungodes by Sam Tellman, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
 DSC_0540.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Pentile screen, shot taken with a microscope. ZOOM,  DSC_0541.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr A laptop screen taken at the same magnification.  DSC_0542.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr And this was a test slide with some dust on it.  DSC_0532.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jul 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
 Green Plant by jhunter!, on Flickr  Green Plant by jhunter!, on Flickr  Plant by jhunter!, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
Finally got my drat camera out  Fly head by alctel, on Flickr  Cricket 2 by alctel, on Flickr  Cricket by alctel, on Flickr Eeek posted:
I love this
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Here are some dusty black things  
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Some kind of cactus  
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2012 23:52
|
|