|
 
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
 blue bottle fly  paper wasp  drop
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
First set of diffusers turned up today blowfly by Raikyn, on Flickr  fly by Raikyn, on Flickr Raikyn fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Another crane fly, now with added diffusion crane fly by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Instead of posting no content in the bird photos thread since I have no suitable equipment, I will post a photo here, from a recent trip to Point Pelee, Ontario, during the Monarch butterfly migration! (one of these days I'll get around to making a Flickr page)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
toggle posted:All bugs are! No! Well... Yeah. I think this is a male Helcomyza mirabilis. It's a kelp fly, a member of the superfamily Sciomyzoidea. Shot with a stacking rig using a reversed el-Nikkor 50mm /2.8N. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
There's some fantastic macro photography in National Geographic's story about insect brain-altering parasites. Article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/mindsuckers/zimmer-text Photo gallery: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/mindsuckers/varma-photography 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Some from today spider by Raikyn, on Flickr  macro by Raikyn, on Flickr  fly wing by Raikyn, on Flickr  bee by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Some from today 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Hi everyone edit: 
Raikyn fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
So I'm interested in doing some macro photography with my D5100 -- insects, plants, but maybe also just some random objects around the house. I've started to do some research on relatively modestly priced lenses (I'd like to stay under $400). I'm generally comfortable with a manual focus lens (maybe something older like the Nikon 55/3.5 Micro, or a newer lens that would be MF only on my D5100, like the Sigma 105/2.8 -- the one without the HSM), but I'd be interested to hear whether it would be worth favoring something with autofocus instead (like the Tamron 90 or Nikon 40). I'm finding myself a little bewildered by the various options -- MF vs. AF, but also various focal lengths and different minimum focus distances. Anyone have any advice either on specific lenses for a Nikon or more general issues to consider as I'm selecting a macro lens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
You'd need something with an internal AF motor on a D5100, which probably makes most AF options expensive. At macro distances AF tends to be pretty hit-and-miss anyway, so MF probably represents better value. It really depends on whether you think you'll want the convenience of AF. Working distance is really the most critical difference, and that tends to scale with focal length (but not always). Many macros get longer as you focus closer, which means you can end up with a lot less WD that you would expect. I've got 3 macro lenses: the old AF-D Nikon 105mm f2.8, the old Tamron 90mm AF and the Tamron 60mm f2 - and I only use them as manual-focus lenses. The 105mm has a longer working distance at 1:1 than the other two, but is much larger and heavier. The other two are pretty similar: the 60mm is an internal-focus design that stays the same length, while the 90mm is like a trombone and nearly doubles in length. My 60mm sees the most use, mostly because it's small and light, and has You can get one of the old-style Tamron 90mm (screw-drive) AF lenses from KEH in good condition for about $300 used https://www.keh.com/288106/, and it's not terrible to use in either MF or AF mode - and you'll have AF if you spring for a camera body that supports screw-drive lenses in future. E: after a quick bit of fact-checking, I found that that Tamron 60mm actually has slightly longer WD at 1:1 than the 90mm: Nikon 105 = ~75mm WD Tamron 90 = ~60mm WD Tamron 60 = ~65mm WD Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Thanks for the information -- that's all very helpful. How important is internal focusing (like on the Tamron 60) vs. something that extends out (like the 90). I feel like I would end up banging into things with the front of the lens on something that didn't do internal focusing, or at least casting shadows with the front of the lens when fully extended, but maybe it's not that much of a problem. Also, is it important to have aperture ring on the lens, so that I can control that manually instead of through the camera? If I wanted to use extension tubes with a macro lens, I assume I'd have no way to adjust the aperture electronically, and would need have a ring on the lens, right? Is that something I should look for, like on the older Sigma 105. McCoy Pauley fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Is anyone doing greater than 1:1 mag on a mirrorless system? I switched to Fuji and miss/need something to replace my MP-E 65mm (1-5x mag). I did see the fuji macro ring announcement...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
 teal by PC-P, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Thanks for the information -- that's all very helpful. I've had no issue with the Tamron 90 extending as when doing macro with it I'm always in manual focus(well 95% of the time) To set the aperture on a lens you can put the lens on normally, set aperture, press the DOF preview button, and while keeping the button pressed remove the lens. The lens will then be set to whatever aperture you've decided. 
Raikyn fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:How important is internal focusing (like on the Tamron 60) vs. something that extends out (like the 90). I feel like I would end up banging into things with the front of the lens on something that didn't do internal focusing, or at least casting shadows with the front of the lens when fully extended, but maybe it's not that much of a problem. It makes lighting marginally easier, but it's really not critical unless you're trying to use the pop-up flash. Having a manual aperture can be handy if you want to use tubes or bellows, but you can get tubes with aperture coupling and electronic passthough if you're prepared to pay for them. Bear in mind that you'll need 90mm of tubes to get to 2x with a 90mm lens, which is cumbersome. I use a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter if I want a little more than than 1:1 magnification - it's pretty convenient, you retain aperture coupling, and you get a longer working distance for a given magnification, and the image quality difference is marginal. Raikyn posted:To set the aperture on a lens you can put the lens on normally, set aperture, press the DOF preview button, and while keeping the button pressed remove the lens. The lens will then be set to whatever aperture you've decided. ^^^ Doesn't this only work for systems with electronically-actuated irises? Nikon lenses all have mechanical aperture levers, so they're always closed when you remove the lens from the camera body. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:Is anyone doing greater than 1:1 mag on a mirrorless system? I switched to Fuji and miss/need something to replace my MP-E 65mm (1-5x mag). If you are seriously into macro, I would just keep a Canon body and that lens asides for that purpose. You're not going to find a more capable lens by itself as far as I'm aware of, and would even have trouble matching it's technical specs with a rigged set up (outside of expensive microscope apertures matched to specific length fixed lenses, which ain't nearly as flexible and compact as the 65mm).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:If you are seriously into macro, I would just keep a Canon body and that lens asides for that purpose. You're not going to find a more capable lens by itself as far as I'm aware of, and would even have trouble matching it's technical specs with a rigged set up (outside of expensive microscope apertures matched to specific length fixed lenses, which ain't nearly as flexible and compact as the 65mm). 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:^^^ Doesn't this only work for systems with electronically-actuated irises? Nikon lenses all have mechanical aperture levers, so they're always closed when you remove the lens from the camera body. Yeah -- I had been assuming that any newer lens for the Nikon body that didn't have an aperture ring (like the newer Tamron 90) would just default to the smallest aperture (F/32 or whatever it is for a given lens) when it was on tubes. I guess unless you get more expensive tubes that let the lens be controlled electronically by the camera body? Anyway, that assumption was leading me to look more closely at lenses with aperture rings, like the Sigma 105. Or maybe the Tokina 100, or the older Tamron 90 that does have the aperture ring. Is there an easy way to figure out if these lenses will meter on my D5100? From what I've found, I think the Sigma will meter on my D5100. Is there something simple to look at that will tell me whether a lens that will be MF only on the D5100 will meter electronically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Anything with a cpu in it will meter. That includes the old tamron and sigma af lenses (we have a d5100 + tamron 90 at work).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:
Yeah sorry 'bout that, I've no idea on the intricacies of nikon systems.  Wool Carder Bee by Raikyn, on Flickr  bug by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Yeah -- I had been assuming that any newer lens for the Nikon body that didn't have an aperture ring (like the newer Tamron 90) would just default to the smallest aperture (F/32 or whatever it is for a given lens) when it was on tubes. I guess unless you get more expensive tubes that let the lens be controlled electronically by the camera body? Yeah, if you get nicer tubes you can meter and focus and poo poo while on tubes. I think I had kenko ones for a bit, they worked pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Did some macro shots for the first time ever yesterday. I bought the wife a D70 and a couple lenses for Christmas / her birthday and she was feeling too under the weather to give the camera more than a single shot of testing, I, with permission of course, gave it a preliminary spin to make sure everything was working properly. Ended up taking the $15 extension tubes that I bought on a lark, getting my work lights out of the garage and setting up a very slapdash macro table. Then before I could start one of my cats decided that the warm work lights focused on the table was obviously a cat sunning bed, so I took some ill prepared pictures of him instead.   Obviously just messing around but it was fun and the cat eye is kinda neat for a poorly planned first effort. If I wanted to try and build a cheap halfway decent rig mostly out of the glass we already own, what would people recommend adding to the list below and would you recommend doing a twin lens reverse setup or buying a close up lens for an already owned piece of glass? I'd be shooting with a D60 or D70 depending on the day. Current lenses Sigma 150-500mm 5-6.3 Sigma 50-200mm 4-5.6 Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 55-250 4-5.6
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Anubis posted:
You should be able to give the reverse lens thing a try for cheap. Either reverse the 50mm directly onto the camera, or else mount the 50 and reverse a zoom onto it. Not sure entirely, I looked into it long ago, but then just decided to buy a macro lens Caterpillar  caterpillar by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Been on a macro kick lately  DSC_3519 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  DSC_3282 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  DSC_3240 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah , also been on a macro kick for a few weeks. On the grape vine by Raikyn, on Flickr  
Raikyn fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
 Bee on Pink by arnesander, on Flickr  Fly on Pink by arnesander, on Flickr I took these last summer, I really love the pink underground. The DOF was a lot more shallow than I expected though  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Couple of shots of a small mantis. Taken at about 2:1  praying mantis by Raikyn, on Flickr  mantis by Raikyn, on Flickr Edit: Had a go at stacking, some parts OOF, but oh well  moth by Raikyn, on Flickr Raikyn fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Tried another stacking attempt, stuffed up the legs a bit, but it might have moved as well Whitetail Spider by Raikyn, on Flickr plus a normal shot  whitetail by Raikyn, on Flickr Raikyn fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:
We had a big one of these in the kitchen last night - 25mm long from head to tail. They do pretty well raiding the nests of black house spiders around our windows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Had something nibbling on me as I was taking photos mosquito by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
How's the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro lens stand up for Nikon cameras? Looking at it as my next purchase, and I figure it'll be better for macro than what I currently use (Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro), right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
From what i've seen in the 90-110 range the 5 popular choices (canon, nikon, sigma, tamron, tokina ) are fairly similar in regards to image quality and are all f2.8 From there it comes down to additional features and price and what you want from the lens eg. focus speed, stabilisation, build quality. The sigma 105 does have a good rep though, and for macro it would a definite upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
From the last few days mosquito by Raikyn, on Flickr  wool carder bee by Raikyn, on Flickr  wool carder bee by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
So I'm getting close to selecting a macro lens in the 90-105 range to use with my Nikon D5100, primarily to take pictures outdoors of bugs and plants (handheld and with a tripod). I have an old, beat Nikkor Micro 55/3.5, but I'd like something (1) a little longer; and (2) that will do 1:1 without needing tubes. I'm comfortable with manual focus, and figure I'll use that for macro anyway, but I'd really like something that will meter on my D5100. Reading through this entire thread and doing some further research online, I've been leaning towards the Tamron 90/2.8 Di SP. This seems generally well regarded and like it could be useful as a portrait lens as well (and MF would be fine there, too -- I understand this would autofocus on my D5100, but the AF is slow). But if I'm looking at this Tamron 90 and planning just to use MF, should I instead consider the older Tamron 90/2.8 SP? That runs about $100 cheaper on KEH for a used version, and it wouldn't AF at all on my D5100 (which is fine), but I believe it would still meter. Assuming that's right, I like having an aperture ring on the lens itself, which this offers over the newer 90. Would the newer one be significantly better in any appreciable way? Any reason I should be looking at other options within this length, and around $300-400? Would the Sigma 105/2.8 D DG EX be feature comparable to the Tamron 90? I believe it is internal focusing, which the Tamron is not, so there's that. What about the Nikon 105/2.8 D? That's a bit over $400 for used versions on KEH, but would it be slightly better in build and/or image quality than the Tamron or the Sigma? Whenever I feel like I've settled on the Tamron 90, I start diving into macro threads and articles online and end up with my resolve lessening in the face of other options. Any thoughts on whether the Tamron 90 is the clear choice, or these lenses would be better options (or perhaps something else I've not yet considered here, like the Tamron 60/2)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is that the Tamron besides the slow AF is also quite noisy on AF, so it can scare thing away with that as well. Not an issue if MF though. Pluses for the Sigma would be internal focus and slighty better working distance. A mantis  mantis by Raikyn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:From the last few days They're wonderful. I didn't have the patience for that lens even though it's absolutely awesome, I've just sold it and ordered a EF 100mm f/2.8L for the money instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
A bee: And a flying prawn: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
 What the crikey gently caress is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 07:41
|
|
