Some Macros from the Archives

A syrphid fly


Attachments
This post contains 1 attachment, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.
Logged


A Spider, little miss muffet.
Attachments
This post contains 1 attachment, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.
Logged


VERY cool.  The focus is incredible.
Is that pollen on the fly's eyes and head?
Logged


Yep it is, pretty cool eh?
Thanks
Logged


What lens are you using for macro work?  Do you use tubes, filters, or do you have a 1:1 lens?  Amazing photos, as usual!

Travis
Logged


Both, 20D, 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 30mm extension tube, lens mounted on tripod.
Some in photoshop cropping was done, why? well, the quality of lens used enabled me to do so. Not sure with this one, however, up to a 50% crop rendered details without destruction using that lens.
Logged


Thanks for the info, Mike.  Do tubes reduce the quality of the image?  I hear so many conflicting statements on this.  I don't do enough macro work to justify a Nikkor-Micro lens.  That'll have to be one of those 'for fun' purchases... someday.  I have heard that you lose image quality with the filters (often called close-up lenses for some reason), so I'm tentative about that, although they are a cheap way to go.  I'm guessing that you lose a stop or two with an extension tube, but that may be acceptable in daylight conditions.  What's your thoughts on the options?

Travis

PS, we may have had this discussion, but I'm still trying to decide what to do, so I'm asking again Big Grin.
Logged


I know for a fact that, filters, the cheap ones, do have an effect on quality, however, the expensive filters, made of glass, are far superior and have very little to no effect on quality.

The extension tubes, not be confused with extenders, have no glass inside, it is a piece of plastic at various m.m. from the contact of the camera/sensor. Extend the lens from the body, therefore, becomes a macro lens, in simple terms.

I wish I had one for my Nikon, I would be an absolute macro nut, I love it.
Logged


OK, no problem on the confusion between extenders (or teleconverter, right?) and extension tubes.  I have never seen a tube, so I didn't know they didn't have glass in them.  Does that cause any problems with the size of the image circle on the film/sensor plane?  Also, is there a way to know how much light loss to compensate for with tubes?  Simply extending the lens from the sensor will require more light for a proper exposure.  Maybe the good glass filters are the best way to go then?  They won't take up much room, are lightweight, can be bought in sets with some variety of magnifications...?  Thoughts?  Do you want me to start another thread, or is this OK to talk about here?

Travis
Logged


I honestly did not pay attention to the technical aspect of how much light loss, this I can say though, I found no issues.
No, no corner issues either.

I've used both lens and filters, I do prefer the tube/tubes
Logged


Travis,

Tubes increase the size of the image circle.  That's how you get higher magnification.  There are tables and formula for "lens extension" when using tubes.  These are the same that you would use when close focusing a view camera.

One other differece between extension tubes and multipliers:  Extension tubes (and close up filters) prevent your lens from focusing at infinity.  The longer the tube or the more powerful the filter the shorter your maximum focus distance will be shorter.

One note to give you some idea how this works . . . if I remember correctly a 50mm extension tube will allow a 50mm lens to have a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

Ed
Logged

Ed Farmer
Mount Laurel, New Jersey

www.edfarmerphotography.com
www.photoartsforum.com

Quote
Tubes increase the size of the image circle.  That's how you get higher magnification.

Well, that makes perfect sense.  Don't I feel like an idiot, that's something I should know.  Thanks for pointing it out to me, however.  Thanks for the other info as well.

Now, sorry for taking this so far off topic Mike, but your images sparked questions and I have a lot of good, new information from your efforts.  Thanks.  I really don't know what to say about your photos, I just really like them.  I know that makes for a pathetic critique, but... that's all I've got.

Travis
Logged


Sorry this is off topic, or back on (not sure)
But I have a big flowering plant/bush thing in front of my porch (not sure what it is, I am not a plant person) and it's just COVERED with bees this time of year.  I like them, most visitors to my home don't.
Anyway, I was attempting the laborous effort of hauling out my camera to attempt some shots... then this topic got brought to the top again, I looked at Mike's image and said "Nah, Mike already did it and much better than I could".  Just thought I would share... oh and that's why I don't ever want to shoot famous things, landscapes and especially sandy beaches with palm trees and blue water.  Someone else already did it better before I have even tried.
Logged


I'll be blunt Susie, but, I think you'll get it.

Somebody already shot weddings, why are you doing it?  case closed right?   Big Grin

Bees will not bother you, honestly, I would like to see you capture some shots, go for it.

In macro or close up, it takes a number of shots to get used to it, I found by locking focus and slowly moving into focus works well, ready to roll the finger on the shutter as you make your way in.

   Camera
Logged


Top of Page