Macro with a long lens

I couldn't get near enough with the 60mm macro so I tried a different tack.
Caper White butterfly - taken hand held at about four metres with the 300mm F4 + MC-14
1/320Sec, F11, ISO 200
http://i68.tinypic.com/154zj1w.jpg

It still looks sharp if you want to pixel peep. (4MB file)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...DJaS0J6TmN1UGM

Love that lens.

That's a cracker Richard.

Long lens macro has become my favorite tactic; I mostly shoot birds, but will frequently spot an insect or flower that begs attention. Beats having to switch lenses.

Richard, nice shot, detail and sharp.

Nice shot, color harmony

You nailed it with that long lens. Not easy to do well.

Dave

Very nice image Richard :)

Excellent image Richard

Great shot

I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio. somehow I think it's less challenging with a long focal length but does it really matter if you get the shot. Nice capture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio. <>

---

It might not be 1:1 though, John.

The posted image appears to be a 1400x1400px crop from a 4608x3456px micro four-thirds (17.3mm x 13mm sensor) camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

It might not be 1:1 though, John.

The posted image appears to be a 1400x1400px crop from a 4608x3456px micro four-thirds (17.3mm x 13mm sensor) camera.

---

Hi Ted, the posted image is a 1440 X1440 resize of the image in the link. The image in the link is a square (2670 X2670) crop of the RAW 4:3 image (4608 X 3450) I added the link for the pixel peepers who didn't mind a 4MB file. I just love that lens and the opportunities it opens up for hand-held photography in often challenging environments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

I couldn't get near enough with the 60mm macro so I tried a different tack.
Caper White butterfly - taken hand held at about four metres with the 300mm F4 + MC-14
1/320Sec, F11, ISO 200
http://i68.tinypic.com/154zj1w.jpg

It still looks sharp if you want to pixel peep. (4MB file)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...DJaS0J6TmN1UGM

Love that lens.

---

That's as good a butterfly shot as I've got with my Tamron 90. Well done. (and better than most of mine)

Great shot. It is a great lens too. I've thought long and hard about buying it but having used the 75-300mm a lot I feel it will be too long too often so can't make my mind up. Also not long enough at times but the converter would help with that.

I suspect pixel peeper would get a bit of a surprise if they viewed the results from a number of Olympus's lenses. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they can match or exceed the usual crop factors. Noise - well my 80D seems to be noisier than either my EM-1 or EM-5. I didn't use my D7000 much but would be inclined to say the same about that. The main problem for me is the 60mm macro. I just wish it was much longer for a greater working distances.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Great shot. It is a great lens too. I've thought long and hard about buying it but having used the 75-300mm a lot I feel it will be too long too often so can't make my mind up. Also not long enough at times but the converter would help with that.

I suspect pixel peeper would get a bit of a surprise if they viewed the results from a number of Olympus's lenses. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they can match or exceed the usual crop factors. Noise - well my 80D seems to be noisier than either my EM-1 or EM-5. I didn't use my D7000 much but would be inclined to say the same about that. The main problem for me is the 60mm macro. I just wish it was much longer for a greater working distances.

John
-

---

Thanks John, I thought long and hard before buying the 300mm F4 after all it cost seven times what I paid for my 75-300mm II and I've got a lot of good shots with that lens. The thing that makes it worth the money is the IS as well as the sharpness. I have never needed to use a tripod or monopod while shooting with it. As for 'too long' I am still finding the need to crop images far more often than I complain that I can't frame the subject. I haven't yet frightened off a bird by walking three paces backwards to frame it. :D I just wish I was more dexterous in swapping the MC-14 in and out.

Dicky.

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.

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.

:D With the zoom I have the problem of having to take the close up lens off at times - a right pain plus I have attached the flash to a lens hood I use on it.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

Hi Ted, the posted image is a 1440 X1440 resize of the image in the link. The image in the link is a square (2670 X2670) crop of the RAW 4:3 image (4608 X 3450) I added the link for the pixel peepers who didn't mind a 4MB file. I just love that lens and the opportunities it opens up for hand-held photography in often challenging environments.

---

Hello Richard,

Thanks for the clarification!

So I'm estimating that the image at the sensor was about 5mm tall, probably a lot smaller than the actual butterfly.

John was suggesting 1:1 which is why I asked.

Perhaps the word "Macro" in the thread title was taken too literally?

It would need to be a very small butterfly to fit 1:1 on a 4/3 sensor (18 x 13mm in 'whole' numbers).

It doesn't really matter if they are not 1:1 people. The end result is what counts. The 60mm macro will do real 1:1 if needed.

There are a lot of macro shots in one of my flickr albums using the zoom and close up lens on the E-M1. They are all hefty crops. One aspect I haven't got right. I'm a good microscope user so never use more mag than needed. I do the same with this gear. When I can see the detail in the viewfinder I take the shot. I need to go a bit more past that. The other problem is no diffuser on the flash.

There are also some spider shots taken with a manual pentax macro lens on a pen in another - tough. I had to focus with a veiwfinder magniification of about 10 so couldn't even be sure that I had the things framed. That particular macro lens is very sharp for an old one.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

It doesn't really matter if they are not 1:1 people. <>

---

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). ;)