PHOTOS PLEASE

[andyman]

Here's some good bird shots http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media ... images_all

[tnf]

Check out the difference in price between the f5.6 version of that lens and the f2.8 version of it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-400mm-Super ... 614&sr=1-1

[ForM]

Aye, the version costs in F/stops are phenomenal...
Most men would make any man bleed, cut off a nut for, or give up their first born to acquire such a lens.
I for one would kill my wife to own such a lens....but then I would be just another animal.

[tnf]

Yea, that's why I went with the f/4 70-200 - and the non-IS version. It was $600, another 400-500 for the f/4 IS or the f 2.8 non-is, another 1000 for the f2.8 IS. Too many other things I could spend the extra money on at this time that I needed for the camera to justify the extra cost.

Form - you have the canon 60mm macro lens, correct? I've been thinking of that or the 100mm for my next lens. You mention using tubes a lot on the 60mm...can you still do good insect shots without the tubes with that lens?

[MKJ]

excellent bird shots, ForM. I could look at those for hours

[seremtan]

looking at all these great pictures makes me realise two things: i need to live somewhere with more interesting wildlife that can tolerate human closeness sufficient for a 200mm zoom, and also that i need to sharpen up my picture composition skills. oh and also improve my PP techniques, since i suspect some of these pictures came out of the camera no better or worse than many of mine. sadly corel paint x3 lacks the 'make awesome' filter

[seremtan]

Sci-fi goodness. Taken today with the Panasonic LX3.

what pp did you do on this? levels? pseudo-hdr? the dark tree bits look well-exposed

excellent pic btw

[ForM]

Form - you have the canon 60mm macro lens, correct? I've been thinking of that or the 100mm for my next lens. You mention using tubes a lot on the 60mm...can you still do good insect shots without the tubes with that lens?

Indeed I do have the 60 mm, and been wanting to get the MPE-65 just ain't had time to go pick it up when times available, something always side tracks me in that adventure.....

I always mention when I tube the 60 because I don't want people to think the lens alone can get that good a magnification....but yes, the lens alone does a fine and outstanding job for macro and is tack ass sharp. Something you would expect from a prime anyway...and since it does double duty as a macro and a 60 mm Prime it is well worth the cash I spent.

The difference between 1:1 to 2:1 is huge, and if I'm lucky enough with the full set of tubes in the right light since i don't have a ring flash yet I can archive a 3:1 but have not had much success that way with them all stacked as ...
1) all tubes combined and the lens is like an F/32...stealing my light and at ISO 1600 comes out too grainy for happiness.
2) all tubes combined on the lens I have to get right in the subjects face and not many just sit there that long while I'm trying to get that focus.

One of the bad things about the 60 mm is that I do have to get "REAL" close. sometimes to close and that scares the subject as much as when tubed but at least I can keep a little bit of distance.

Most of my first Macro shots in this thread are un-tubed....so if needed, find my starting point with the macro and tell me if they sucked, cause I assure you they did not as I was very proud of the shots that I posted. I dont like to post half assed shots, Macro or other wise. I tend to share my Best of the best. It's just the way I am.

But, if you like, I will re-share this NON TUBED shot of a Weevil that is half the size of a BB...and a Midge, tho it was slightly out of focus as I was learning the what to do and not to do parts in macro. the Midge I dont think I shared and is about as big as a "dog Pecker nat" and I know every ones seen those itty bitty dark bugs buzzing their dogs ass.......

Sized down slightly from full size and filled the frame in my camera, slight PP adjustments....non tubed...1:1.3



Non tubed Midge, no PP and some cropping.........size comparison, about 1/4 the size of a fruit fly...1:1



The focal plane at 1:1 is very thin....let alone getting smaller from 2:1 and down to 5:1 which the MPE-65 can do.

If you are looking for a suggestion, I would recommend the MPE-65 as it can do the whole range of 1:1 to 5:1.....how ever it IS macro dedicated and only manual focus is available. At least with the 60 mm and the 100 mm you can turn auto focus to AI and it will move in to the nearest focus thus keeping you trained on the subject.

Manual focus full time is a pain in the ass and I do mostly do that with the 60 mm, but more often then not I found it not getting as close as it could so I would switch it back to manual.

Just my 2 cents...



And thank you MKJ, I thought the Bluebird shots came out quite well for a lens I'm ready to part with.

[ForM]

Finally got a bird landing.

This series of shots are really good tnf, especially the landing shot......to bad it was not head on.....

Notice how closing the F/stop got ya more clarity on the wing span...... as I previously stated.......close it some more to F/8 or 10 next time.

[tnf]

Thanks. Yea, I know that the sweet spot of my lens tends to be around f8. I've been trying to go for higher shutter speeds to capture action, hence the wider aperture.

I wish I had the $$$ to buy whatever lens I wanted - right now I am debating between:

100mm macro
60mm macro (big price difference)
OR
10-22 mm Canon lens
or a comparable sigma, tamron, or tokina

I want the 10mm so I can get the widest possible shots on my crop factor body.

Suggestions Form? Or anyone?

[tnf]

Here's a shot I took yesterday while sitting on the couch fucking around with the 50mm lens and shallow DOF and bouncing flash in different directions. The controller was sitting on the end table, so it made an easy subject.

[ForM]

I'm afraid you need to ignore the crop factor tnf, as the only real place that it comes into play is the zooming factor, and that is only slight at best.

As far as recommendations, as per the macro world, I already gave it. Canon MP-E 65mm.

In the lens world, you get what you pay for.

You are better off paying for the lowest F/stop factor that you can afford that meets your shooting needs. If that means you need to spend 2 grand on say a 50 mm Prime at an F/1.4 verses a 50 mm Prime at F5.6, you will find it money worth spent as per all the other shit you "Think you need". Stuff like a bag to pack it in, polorizers, bat grips and yadda yadda.

This is where you have to come to grips, and decide whats best for you and your type of photography. Some of the best use shit equipment and make the most of it.

You need to ask yourself........."What do I really want to shoot tomorrow?"

I myself have two needs. A decent 1.4 20-70, mostly for storm shots and sunsets, and a MPE-65 for macro with a flash ring. I'm not in to portraits or ever will be unless it involves sex. At my age that's not going to happen as my name is not Ron Jeremy.. But I do know how to use my crappy kit lens at the best of its possibilities. With it, I can make a skank look pretty.

[Fender]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealfen ... 135750302/

[tnf]

I'm afraid you need to ignore the crop factor tnf, as the only real place that it comes into play is the zooming factor, and that is only slight at best.

Thanks for the info Form. Regarding this, are you saying that putting a 10 mm lens on a camera with the 1.6x crop factor will give the same field of view as it will on a full body camera or that you don't think the difference is that much of an issue? That was my point with the crop factor - I want the lens that will give me the widest possible angle on my camera with a smaller sensor than full frame. I've tried the 20mm wide angle I am borrowing right now on my camera and on a student's 5D Mark II and there is a very noticeable difference. Looked at the work of a guy who did some landscape stuff at an art fest this weekend, and his widest lens was 17mm (on a 5d mark ii). Looking at his shots I figured a 16-17 mm equivalent is about as wide as I'd ever need, and to get that on my camera, I'd need at least a 10mm lens.

So that was my only point with crop factor. Otherwise I don't even think about it.

[Tsakali]

Here's a shot I took yesterday while sitting on the couch fucking around with the 50mm lens and shallow DOF and bouncing flash in different directions. The controller was sitting on the end table, so it made an easy subject.

[img]controller[/img]

i like that

[ToxicBug]

Thanks. Yea, I know that the sweet spot of my lens tends to be around f8. I've been trying to go for higher shutter speeds to capture action, hence the wider aperture.

I wish I had the $$$ to buy whatever lens I wanted - right now I am debating between:

100mm macro
60mm macro (big price difference)
OR
10-22 mm Canon lens
or a comparable sigma, tamron, or tokina

I want the 10mm so I can get the widest possible shots on my crop factor body.

Suggestions Form? Or anyone?

i'd get a full frame + canon 17-40 or 16-35...

[Underpants?]

dudes, seriously.... has doombrain been accosted by homosexual Vegas midwife ex convict rapists, or something?

[Fender]

is he gone?
huh... yeah, nothing since May 1st

[tnf]

Thanks. Yea, I know that the sweet spot of my lens tends to be around f8. I've been trying to go for higher shutter speeds to capture action, hence the wider aperture.

I wish I had the $$$ to buy whatever lens I wanted - right now I am debating between:

100mm macro
60mm macro (big price difference)
OR
10-22 mm Canon lens
or a comparable sigma, tamron, or tokina

I want the 10mm so I can get the widest possible shots on my crop factor body.

Suggestions Form? Or anyone?

i'd get a full frame + canon 17-40 or 16-35...

And I'd get a Nikon D3X if I could afford it. But at this point, my images will be better served to buy nice lenses with the money I have. When the 5D Mark II has gone down to maybe 1500 or so in a few years I might get it. But the 50D is more than enough for me at the moment.

[tnf]

Shot at F9 to f11 today form and did get some noticeably better sharpness (at ISO 800, so the noise was noticeable).



This shot is taken right below a bird that is taking off - look at those talons. Wish that damned branch wasn't right there.

[tnf]

Couple more:


Hummingbird was buzzing around the nest, was hoping to see a fight between the two:

[+JuggerNaut+]

you and your fucking birds. more of that controller plz.

[tnf]

you and your fucking birds. more of that controller plz.

Here's the only other controller image I took. I liked the other one better.

[MKJ]

dudes, seriously.... has doombrain been accosted by homosexual Vegas midwife ex convict rapists, or something?

Last seen 12 hours ago

he also seems to have removed me off his friendslist. probably since the last time I "tattletaled" his presence online whilst he didnt show up here for a while.

*busted rofl*

[ForM]

Shot at F9 to f11 today form and did get some noticeably better sharpness (at ISO 800, so the noise was noticeable).

Wow....seems I do know what I'm talking about huh? The focus on this is visibly better compared to your last shots, except for the landing shot which was absolutely beautiful, However........

I see you still feel the need for a super fast shutter speed when in reality, a perched bird like this image does not require, thus allowing you to stop down on the ISO to say 400 or less, thus dropping more of the noise that you complain of, which is highly noticeable in the humming bird shot.

I'm willing to bet you could have slowed down your shutter speed too, to about 250 and still able to shoot at ISO 100 and still get a dammed good shot even at F/9, the trick tho, is to shoot in RAW, watch your Histogram to make sure you don't lose any detail. If the bar falls off to the left you have lots of detail loss, which hampers you in raw when you "Manually" fix the exposure by adjusting in DPP.

I guess it is here I should ask, do you look at your histogram to know how far to the left or right you are for details? Do you shoot in RAW? and, Do you use the DPP program supplied with your camera?

If the answer is no to any of these, I suggest you give it a go.