Discussion in 'Macro Photography' started by OzPhoto, Mar 12, 2010.
I love the big eyes on this fly. It's no wonder why these guys always seem to see you coming!
They grow em big in Ozland! That or you've been cropping to help show off those fantastic eyes again! I've never manged to get a fly shot at 1:1 to show eye detail when cut down to websize unless I cropped it away.
Out of interest since you like higher magnifications have you thought of using teleconverters and or diopters (macrofilters) to get more magnification out of your lens? It can be challenging but fantastic fun when results like this
IMG_0048 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
are possible with no cropping needed.
Yes it's no secret that I will crop for composition and to bring out finer details like the eyes, but only a super sharp shot with good diffused lighting will allow me to do so. If there is any hint of motion blur, cropping is going to reveal these faults even more.
Have I thought of using teleconverters? Yes, it is definitely something I'm looking into soon and the ideal magnification I'm looking for. I just want to make sure I get a good quality one, as it would be a real shame to turn my nice sharp 105-mm into the optical equivalent of a coke bottle! I can't use extension tubes with the 105 mm so a teleconverter is the next option and I want to ideally get some good glass.
Hmm how come you can't use extension tubes? A good set (kenko brand with the contacts) would have electrical contacts that would allow you to retain both AF, metering and aperture control as normal. Its only the ultra cheap tubes that lose those features because they lack the contacts.
As for the best teleconverter I think nikon brand might fit your lens - if not both sigma and kenko make very good teleconverters (the sigma I have I can't tell from my canon teleconverters image quality wise).
Yeah I thought the same until I looked into it. My manual for the lens says that the nikon extension tubes are not compatible and that the nikon TC-14/17/20 teleconverters will work but there is no autofocus. I think it's a compatibility issue with the news AF-S nikon lenses. Hopefully they might bring out a new products in the future that will have greater compatibility.
Hmm well nikon (and canon) extension tubes are way overpriced anyway - you can get a set of Kenko tubes (which have the same air and thus give the same image quality) for much less than the same length would cost you in official tubes. I belive that the kenko have tubes that are compatable with the new AF-s nikon lenses (I recall taking to a few shooters who have wondered at why nikon has/had not upgraded their tubes)
Failing that you could look into a Raynox DCR 250 - the most you would need there is a stepping ring if the clip attachment is not able to fit direct to the filter thread of yourlens.
As for AF - to be honest I've not used AF for macro at all and manual focus works well - so a 1.4TC even with no AF would be fine; some (eg sigma or kenko) teleconverters might also give AF when attached as well.
Yeah I know I have a few options. I know some macro photographers who use the Raynox DCR 250 with great success so i've considered that. I don't generally use autofocus either, but the AF on the 105mm is quite impressive and i've been able to catch insects in flight with it so I was impressed with it's abilities. From what i've researched, it's not recommended to use extension tubes and I need to find out the reason for that before I proceed. Ideally i'd prefer air between the lens and sensor than glass, though I have seen some nice shots from teleconverters also. All I know is that I have a bit of research to do.
sharpest image i've seen all day
Very nice. A lot of people are having some great success with the Canon 500d close up fliter/lens. Shaprness and quality degredation is suppossed to be extremely minimal and it gives about 2:1 mag on a lens that already has 1:1. I am considering getting a 500d for my 180mm once I get the hang of it at 1:1.
I'm quite impressed with the sharpness you seem to consistently get. It will be very impressive when you are shooting beyond 1:1.
Oz I suspect the reason recomending against extension tubes is based on two parts - one part dust and one part length.
On the first part using tubes means adding and removing the lens to fit them which means more chance to get dust particles inside the camera. To me its a null problem, dust is going to get in there and unless you seal the camera and lens and never ever separate them dust is going to be part of life - the spot heal tool also works really well
On the second the rough maths for using tubes is that the longer the focal length of the lens the more tube length you need to get an increase in mangification. Don't hold me to this but for a 105mm macro lens you would need around 100mm of tube length to get to 2:1 macro. That is a lot of tube and means that you have a very unbalanced setup to hold with the lens weight all thrust out at the end. Further tube lenght will also degrade your image quality and cause light loss - the general use of tubes on 50mm lenses and to get little boosts to magnifiaction on other glass (eg a bit of tube on a telephoto for a long range 1:2 lens for speedy big bugs like dragons and butterflies) uses shorter lengths so image quality loss and light loss are minimal,
Big red eyes is right.
what type of flash setup did you use? or is this natural light?
Separate names with a comma.