Steve'sDigicams

Bynx · Apr 27, 2012, 5:13 PM

Thats weird. The second picture was gone. I went to fix it and it was still gone. Then it reappeared with both pics again. It seems to be fixed now.

Tullio · Apr 27, 2012, 6:28 PM

Yes, now I see both. Great macros!

pj1974 · May 1, 2012, 8:16 PM

Hi Bynx

Great photos! I like both of them. Impressed at the sharpness, but especially at the depth of field. Does reversing the lens somehow allow you to stop down - or give one a lot of depth of field? (I'd have thought not - as I thought it was a property of physics).

Or did you a) stop down a LOT or b) use focus stacking technique? When I take such close macros (eg with my Canon 100mm macro lens) - even if I stop down to eg f13, the depth of field (dof) is still quite small.

A while ago I took some photos of my strawberry flowers - and captured an ant walking on it / polinating it... which made for an interesting 'addition' to the photo. Your compositions are probably superior to mine though (as mine were more 'face on' / flat - due to the dof).

Thanks for sharing!

PS.. .shame to hear about your triple bypass!

Phew... hopefully the 'strawberries with whipped cream' in moderation won't cause further health issues.....

Bynx · May 1, 2012, 11:11 PM

Hi PJ. The shots were taken with a 28-300mm reversed lens. Everything works in reverse when you do that. At 300mm you can be 3 feet away from subject. At 28mm you can be an inch away. I focus at f5.6, then I shut down to f22 for the shot. It gives me good depth of field. I also had a 2X teleconverter attached. Im still screwing around with the different lenses and teleconverter and stepdown ring combinations to see what works best. So far its the 28-300mm by far.

pj1974 · May 2, 2012, 12:37 AM

Cool... thanks for the explanation Bynx.

I've seen (and heard of) people using lenses reversed to great effect. But I didn't realise about the difference of focal length on minimum focal distance (MFD) / focus possibility. Wow, one inch away is great!

Perhaps the 2X teleconverter affects that as well (giving you something like f/44 equivalent if you've 'shot' at f/22?) So you focus at f/5.6 so it can lock focus (or you can see what you're doing?)

I expect you used a tripod (or some other form of support)?

Again well done. The colours and composition are great on both. The shot is not quite 'tack sharp' -but they're not terribly soft either.

Cheers, mate

Paul

Apr 27, 2012, 6:28 PM	#12
Tullio Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,370	Yes, now I see both. Great macros! __________________ Tullio

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Apr 27, 2012, 5:13 PM	#11
Bynx Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: East of Toronto Posts: 8,800	Thats weird. The second picture was gone. I went to fix it and it was still gone. Then it reappeared with both pics again. It seems to be fixed now.

May 1, 2012, 8:16 PM	#13
pj1974 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 2,917	Hi Bynx Great photos! I like both of them. Impressed at the sharpness, but especially at the depth of field. Does reversing the lens somehow allow you to stop down - or give one a lot of depth of field? (I'd have thought not - as I thought it was a property of physics). Or did you a) stop down a LOT or b) use focus stacking technique? When I take such close macros (eg with my Canon 100mm macro lens) - even if I stop down to eg f13, the depth of field (dof) is still quite small. A while ago I took some photos of my strawberry flowers - and captured an ant walking on it / polinating it... which made for an interesting 'addition' to the photo. Your compositions are probably superior to mine though (as mine were more 'face on' / flat - due to the dof). Thanks for sharing! PS.. .shame to hear about your triple bypass! Phew... hopefully the 'strawberries with whipped cream' in moderation won't cause further health issues.....

May 1, 2012, 11:11 PM	#14
Bynx Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: East of Toronto Posts: 8,800	Hi PJ. The shots were taken with a 28-300mm reversed lens. Everything works in reverse when you do that. At 300mm you can be 3 feet away from subject. At 28mm you can be an inch away. I focus at f5.6, then I shut down to f22 for the shot. It gives me good depth of field. I also had a 2X teleconverter attached. Im still screwing around with the different lenses and teleconverter and stepdown ring combinations to see what works best. So far its the 28-300mm by far.

May 2, 2012, 12:37 AM	#15
pj1974 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 2,917	Cool... thanks for the explanation Bynx. I've seen (and heard of) people using lenses reversed to great effect. But I didn't realise about the difference of focal length on minimum focal distance (MFD) / focus possibility. Wow, one inch away is great! Perhaps the 2X teleconverter affects that as well (giving you something like f/44 equivalent if you've 'shot' at f/22?) So you focus at f/5.6 so it can lock focus (or you can see what you're doing?) I expect you used a tripod (or some other form of support)? Again well done. The colours and composition are great on both. The shot is not quite 'tack sharp' -but they're not terribly soft either. Cheers, mate Paul