Awww... da widdle wens is so cutesy wootsey!!! :)

[Overread18 6]

well the mag is certainly not going to run away
Mostly when people speak of macro lens problems I start thinking of insect shots rather than normal shots
One thing to consider is that your aperture is very wide - so of course you are losing your depth of field - looking at your wide aperture and high ISO I wonder if many of your less than perfects shots are indoors shots?

 

[JHF Photography]

I think I need to make it a little dress and have a tea party with it... I'll get my daughter's webkins and some crumpets... and some jam! We'll have a little party! And talk about all kinds of great little things! Like unicorns! And dolphins! I think I need to paint my room purple! EEEEES SOOOO CEWWWTTT!!!

This is a photo forum. This is totally unexceptable.......












:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: WE NEED TO SEE PICTURES OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

I mean come on, you can't tease us with visuals like that without some photographic evidence!

 

[Chewbecca]

well the mag is certainly not going to run away
Mostly when people speak of macro lens problems I start thinking of insect shots rather than normal shots
One thing to consider is that your aperture is very wide - so of course you are losing your depth of field - looking at your wide aperture and high ISO I wonder if many of your less than perfects shots are indoors shots?

No, my less than perfect shots are flower shots or insect shots.
And when I'm outside, I RARELY have my ISO over 320 or 400. And that's ONLY if it's cloudy. I usually go ISO 200 or lower.
But I have also only used Single area AF once on a shot, I believe. The rest have been on dynamic area AF.
Like, this shot:

I would have MUCH preferred to have the center of the flower in focus, but somehow I managed to the get the front part of the center and the front petals in focus.
That's on f4.

 

[Overread18 6]

I think you need to really turn off the AF for your macro work - even just the center point (which when I use AF for wildlife (and anything else for that matter) its only the centre point that I use - that way I am in control and not the camera - which can get things wrong).
Your shot is good - background is clean and well blurred, subject has good colours and the focus appears sharp - the point not being where you want it will keep happening with the AF - switch to manual where you have control.
Essentially AF is great when you have a subject that moves or where speed is essential - with a static subject (or macro) MF works better

 

[Chewbecca]

I think you need to really turn off the AF for your macro work - even just the center point (which when I use AF for wildlife (and anything else for that matter) its only the centre point that I use - that way I am in control and not the camera - which can get things wrong).
Your shot is good - background is clean and well blurred, subject has good colours and the focus appears sharp - the point not being where you want it will keep happening with the AF - switch to manual where you have control.
Essentially AF is great when you have a subject that moves or where speed is essential - with a static subject (or macro) MF works better

Thank you. I will try MF next time.:mrgreen:

 

[pm63]

Chris, you are a very strange man.

Lovley cat though. :thumbup:

 

[manaheim]

2*zoom means its a teleconverter rather than an extension tube (the tube just has no optics at all)
The teleconverter will give you a boost to magnification, but its also going to affect other things as a well - the extension tube boosts your close focusing distance (lets you get closer to the subject) but also removes your long distance focusing as well.
its a trade off and some people do combine the two - I have not experimented with tubes and non-macro lenses though (I own enough teleconverters, but not extension tubes*

Oh hoooo... I get it! Thank you!
Damnit, now I have to add something else to buy.

This is a photo forum. This is totally unexceptable.......

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: WE NEED TO SEE PICTURES OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

I mean come on, you can't tease us with visuals like that without some photographic evidence!

hahah... there will be no pictures.

Chris, you are a very strange man.

Lovley cat though. :thumbup:

haha, thanks.

 

[Shine]

Boys, boys, boys...tsk, tsk, sounds like some of you may have a case of LENS ENVY!:lmao:

BTW Chris, I have the 50mm 1.4

 

[manaheim]

Boys, boys, boys...tsk, tsk, sounds like some of you may have a case of LENS ENVY!:lmao:

BTW Chris, I have the 50mm 1.4

haahah... braggart! j/k

I thought about the 1.4, but it was just too entertaining of an idea to buy such an amazing lens for such stupidly cheap money.

 

[maytay20]

I recently got my 50mm 1.8 then shortly after adopted this guy!!!

Lets just say for $100.00 I love this thing!! I can't wait till I can afford a prime L!!

 

[Chewbecca]

I'm one of those crazy people running around with an $1800 body with $100 lenses connected to it. (well, ok I do have ONE expensive lens, but I've only had that for about 6 months) 'course in the case of the 50mm, it's just been a much overdue toy... I don't really need it for the work that I do, and I always have something else I need to spend $100 on, so it was just a matter of forcing myself to do it.

HA! My most expensive lens is my Sigma 10-20mm! And that lens isn't expensive in the lens world.
:lmao:
My next major purchase is a flash. And I have to SAVE for that, in fact, it's more than likely going to be a Christmas present.

 

[manaheim]

HA! My most expensive lens is my Sigma 10-20mm! And that lens isn't expensive in the lens world.
:lmao:
My next major purchase is a flash. And I have to SAVE for that, in fact, it's more than likely going to be a Christmas present.

ha! That's my expensive lens, too. I gotta get on the ball and blow $1800 on something so I can feel like I have a sorta respectably acceptable lens.

 

[Chewbecca]

ha! That's my expensive lens, too. I gotta get on the ball and blow $1800 on something so I can feel like I have a sorta respectably acceptable lens.

Ouch. It hurts to even think of spending that much on a piece of glass.
I mean, I know it's worth it, but I'd be afraid to go out shooting with glass that expensive.
After I get my flash, I think my next major purchase will be a TRUE macro lens.
Photography isn't my career, it's only a hobby, so it's ok for me to only dream and have to save for accessories that I want.:mrgreen:

 

[JerryPH]

I think my next major purchase will be a TRUE macro lens.

[Subliminal suggestion mode]

Sigma 105mm macro... and it is a lot less than 1800.

[/Subliminal suggestion mode]

 

[Chewbecca]

[Subliminal suggestion mode]

Sigma 105mm macro... and it is a lot less than 1800.

[/Subliminal suggestion mode]

:lmao:

My friend just got the Nikon 60mm f2.8 and she's gotten some amazing shots with it. I don't know...some more subliminal suggestions for the Sigma might convince me that's a better route...
Right now I have the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but it's not a true macro (believe me, I'm NOT complaining, it's still a great lens).

Sorry, when I was thinking of an $1800 lens, I was thinking of some crazy telephoto lens or one of those primes that aren't produced anymore.