Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 26, 2007, 5:27 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Roy, I photographed a mating pair of Fritillaries a couple of hours ago, and they are still hanging there, so I would have had plenty of time to fumble with extension tubes. If they were free flying butterflies, forget it - they rarely sit still long enough for anything but a grab shot. A good "walk around" lens allows you to grab shots when and where they present themselves with a minimum of fussing around. The Tamrons even allow for built in flash without the lens hoods, but not with. Adding extension tubes to a 300 might not, and would reduce the maximum effective aperture as well. Even if a lens is not the most glamorous or expensive one around, the ability to even get the image at all is worth having it and using it. Here is a previously postedexample of what the 70-300 can do - the wasp didn't sit still in one position for more than acouple ofseconds:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 5:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

P,
here's a couple with the M200/4 with 63mm ex tubes. works great from 30-36''




i'm not real sure what you were telling me in your last post. is it good to use them or not.??

H,
i went out with the 300 and 68mm ex tubes. close focus is around 4' and around 1:4-5 i think. i like the 200 better. yes, it takes a flash. i've got a few hundred DFs flying around but none will land. go figure

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 6:35 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Quote:
i'm not real sure what you were telling me in your last post. is it good to use them or not.??
Whatever works for you. I don't question the quality of shots takenwith the tubes. My point is that for a walk-around lens (one that is ready for anything instantly)you do not have maximum flexibility either with the tubes mounted or without,since it takes time to mount/dismount them. If you need the other state quickly, you are out of luck (if you are using the tubes and a bird flies by, you have lostdistance focus and can't get the shot).


penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 6:48 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

you are 100% right. i use to have the lens you refer to, the 70-300 and i had a lot of fun with it. from what i've seen the IQ of the newer ones are quite a bit better than my older copy.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 8:27 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,888
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
I like this one, in spite of the fact that it isn't a good picture of a butterfly.¬* The DOF is way too small to do the butterfly justice, but does give one contemplating this type of lens an idea of just how tiny the DOF can be (I went for a faster shutter speed).¬* I did have the adaptor on the¬*Phoenix when I took this one.

K100, Phoenix 100mm macro with adaptor, f6.7, 1/350.
Harriet

AtF6.7,it is actually paper thin by macro standard. Impressive focusing indeed given the short duration of the subject posting for you

Great shot

Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 9:06 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Daniel - thanks for the compliment! These were manually focused (all my macro pictures are) and I'm trying to be faster with the shutter. I have a horrible tendency to "see" the focus, hear the beep and then pause rather than immediately pushing the shutter the rest of the way down. Not a good habit at all, and I'm trying to get better at it. I was pleased at how many reasonable pictures I managed of these butterflies.

Roy - 4' still isn't close enough for me to mess with it. The lens becomes awkward and really too hard for me to handle without a tripod, even with my home-made extension tubes. Maybe next year I'll look at picking up a used 70-300 - penolta makes good sense. If it isn't fun for me, I'm not going to do it - no matter how good the picture.


mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2007, 3:40 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
jachol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. England
Posts: 1,201
Default

Like all your shots mtngal, canI suggest you try using the onboard flash with this lens, I find that even at 1:1 you don't get a shadow from the lens, and at the distances you shot these from, should be no problem at all. You'll be able to stop down much more to improve the DOF, flash also takes care of shake. all the shots in this thread ...

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=94

were shot at F22 1/180 onboard flash @ -2.0 EV ...you'll need to experiment with the flash level dependent on distance, and some diffusion will help. Just my thoughts ...give it a try. ... Jack
jachol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2007, 5:23 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

penolta wrote:
Quote:
Harriet - you are carrying two cameras (K100 & K10) on your hikes? Have you looked into one of the 300mm macro zooms for a walk-about lens? I have used both the Tamron 70-300 LD and the 28-300 LD with satisfactory results. The 70-300 yields 1:2 magnification at 3 ft, but has a macro switch for the 3-5 foot close distances, while the 28-300 focuses continuously to a distance a few inches closer than 3 ft. Both would throw a shadow with the built-in flash at maximum extension with the lens hood on, but not without. Current versions are DI, but the older 70-300 should still be around - a bargain in the $150-170 range - and the DI is under $200. The 28-300 is at least twice that. (Sigma has APO and non APO 70-300s, butI have no experience with those)

I need to refine the specifications given above for the olderLD lenses from the spec sheets - not all the 70-300s are 1:2. There are two different specs for the 70-300 (model numbers are marked on the lens): Models 572D (mine) and 772D are 1:2 and focus to 3.12 ft at 300mm (the spec sheet gives 0.99mm distance when they mean 99.0mm!) and weighs 15.3 oz; model 472D is only 1:39, focuses only to 4.9 ft, and weighs 18.2 oz, so for macro use, models 572D/772D are preferable. The 28-300 (model 185D)is given as1:37 max, focusing to 2.0 ft at 200mm and back out to a marked 2.68 at 300mmand weighs 20.6 oz. There was also a 75-300 which is 1:39 (models 672D/872D).
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:38 PM.