Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Macro with a long lens

  1. #21
    Wavelength's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kerala, India
    Posts
    13,862
    Real Name
    Nandakumar

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    An excellent butterfly image

  2. #22
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Quote Originally Posted by xpatUSA View Post
    Sorry, us people probably misunderstood "I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio." (my bold).
    That's how I see it Ted or even larger than life size. Otherwise there are fair few insects that would need medium format for 1:1. I posted as shot of a butterfly that wouldn't fit on FF camera at 1:1. It most certainly wouldn't on the canon crop I used.

    On a microscope I use a 1/2" sensor, large compared with more recent ones. That has a diagonal of about 8mm. I don't do it as insects have to be killed but it can produce massive images at enormous magnifications. The same can be done on dslr's too.

    John
    -

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw View Post
    That's how I see it Ted or even larger than life size. Otherwise there are fair few insects that would need medium format for 1:1. I posted as shot of a butterfly that wouldn't fit on FF camera at 1:1. It most certainly wouldn't on the canon crop I used.

    On a microscope I use a 1/2" sensor, large compared with more recent ones. That has a diagonal of about 8mm. I don't do it as insects have to be killed but it can produce massive images at enormous magnifications. The same can be done on dslr's too.

    John
    -
    By George, I think I've got it.

    Are you using the rigorous definition of "macro", i.e. 1:1 or bigger, anything else is just "close-up"?

  4. #24
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Pass Ted. It's a subject I have seen crop up many times even to the extent that it's not macro 'cause it didn't use a macro lens. Micro is higher mags than 1:1 according to some. Another one but where is the image viewed.

    All I would say is that few people are interested in the image on the sensor so who cares. Many macro shots finish up with much higher than 1:1 magnification so is that microphotography ? I've used a close up lens. Is that close up photography? Some do microphotography with several close up lenses attached. Some stick certain microscope opjectives on the end of 200mm telephoto's. Some use them directly.

    I feel it's an area best left for people who feel like being pedantic as it has to be a rather grey area in practice.

    John
    -

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Sorry, us people probably misunderstood "I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio." (my bold).
    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw
    That's how I see it Ted, or even larger than life size.
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Are you using the rigorous definition of "macro", i.e. 1:1 or bigger, anything else is just "close-up"?
    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw View Post
    Pass Ted.
    An interesting sequence . . I fold

  6. #26
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Don't know why Ted. I do know what I think. Others may thinks something else so in that respect I pass. I had already expressed my view on the subject so why ask ?

    John
    -

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    SE Queensland
    Posts
    679
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw View Post
    I've wondered about the Panasonic 100-400mm but my favourite test site really slates it at the long end and they had the cheek to put Leica on it. I've wondered if they tested a lemon but really bad lenses are rare in that respect.
    -
    The early samples from the 100-400 were very disappointing, I think the reviewers had the lens for only a short time and conditions/weather were very poor for getting a fair result. Since then I've seen a lot of very sharp images at the long end.

    For macro I have mostly used the 75-300mm with an elderly Sigma achromatic close up lens on it. It gets a bit weak at 300mm but even then can cope with a fair bit of detail on say a bee. The close up lens has the correct filter size. I also tried a modern one bought new - never again. It had canon on it but I've since found that they apparently don't make them. The Sigma ones crop up on ebay now and again. Most of the problems I have had are down to me plus the flash set up and I did hope to sort that out more this year but insect life were I have been hasn't been very good. I'm also trying the canon 80d and a sigma 150mm but initial impression is much more difficult to use hand held and weighs a fair bit more. Results better - if I had the dof correct on the m 4/3 I don't think so but time will tell.
    -
    I tried a Canon 250D on the 75-300mm but it had a DOF of one Angstrom, so I gave the 250D to my nephew together with the Fuji HS50 that the E-M1 replaced. The 250D transformed macro on the HS50.
    Macro with a long lens

    Dicky.

  8. #28
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Macro with a long lens

    I am probably being a bit unfair on the Panasonic lens. At 300mm it is better than the Olympus 75-300mm. The centre resolution as not bad at 400mm but not good either. Edge a bit of a disaster. The centre can be matched by some full frame 100-400mm. IS mediocre too, about 2.5 stops as they test it. The review on the lens has received some criticism - didn't do it properly mostly from none English speaking European countries. People in that area are more likely to be interested in technical reviews. The review sites answer to that is well look at our results on the Olympus 300mm F4. The resolution is so high on that one that any testing method problems would show up. One thing that doesn't seem to have happened is Panasonic lending them another lens.

    There are a couple of bird shots here with it. Full frame type and then at the side of a frame

    https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/T...8274164710.jpg

    https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/T...0944874126.jpg

    These give some idea of the material available to work with. It's about what I would expect from the tests. I have always looked at this type before buying a lens and they can give people a fair idea of what the results will look like.

    On macro with the set up I mentioned this isn't far off a direct crop from a full sized image.

    [IMG]Macro with a long lensP7190213 by John, on Flickr[/IMG]

    I really should have got in closer on that one. For some reason I didn't try to get eye detail visible. That may be due to me not wanting to set it at over 200mm due to the size of the insect and bushes being in the way, I have found that results can drop off above 200mm and just as a for instance that fits in with resolution tests on the lens.

    John
    -
    Last edited by ajohnw; 27th September 2016 at 10:07 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •