Butterflies 10d with 100 2.8 Macro

[Matthias]

In the last days i shot some new macro shots.

I hope you like them

http://www.kreativ-foto.com/EOS-10D/EF100makro/10d0048.jpg

http://www.kreativ-foto.net/bilder/temp/Scheckiklein.jpg

http://www.kreativ-foto.net/bilder/temp/Dickkopf.jpg

here you can find all exif data
http://www.kreativ-foto.com/EOS-10D/EF100makro/Canon_EF_100_Makro.html

Have fun!

Greatings
Matthias

[CyberDyneSystems]

Very impressive. :)

Butterfly Porn :D

[tzrider]

Super sharp, nice picts !

Did you post process them ?

Best wishes,

Jeroen

[Matthias]

@tzrider,

yes i do.
with PS.
Levels and USM

Greatings and THX
Matthias

[rickm]

I really like your shots. I have taken some close to that quality but by using an extension tube with the 70-200 lens. I always have to stop way down to get enough depth of field though. Is this entirely because of the extension tube? Looking at your exif info, it appears you could shoot wide open and still have the entire object sharp? Is that one of the biggest benefits to a true macro lens vs. the extension tube method?

[Matthias]

@Rick,

yes it is.
That´s why marco lenses are so spezial.
And i love the 100 2.8.

And with the 10d ISo 400 is very good to use.

Matthias

[boyhowdy]

I have not had real success yet with butterflies. I am using a sigma 180mm f 3.5 APO macro. I normally shoot at ISO 200. Maybe 400 would be better. The DOF seems very limited with this lens (or my shooting abilities). Could it be because it is such high magnification? I have included a shot of a butterfly drinking. The head is great but there is no DOF behind that which would make sense. I am also including an ant which was low to the ground and DOF is no problem. Any suggestions?

Patrick

http://www.krcenterprises.com/pictures/butterfly-drinking.jpg

http://www.krcenterprises.com/pictures/red-ant.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

What Aperture are you set to?

Try stopping the lens down to give you a larger depth of feild,.. (you may need to bump up ISO to keep the shutter speed acceptable)

Your DOF is definately very shallow in the butterfly pic,. it looks like the attempts I've made using spacer rings?

That ANT is most impressive though. The lens is definately good at magnifying things! But again,. your depth of feild is VERY short,.. the ground is positively out of focus,. and we know it is only a millimeter or so away from the top of the ant....

in fact,. the back of the abdomen is really SHARP,.. but even the head looks a little off,. and I think it is because either the lens was at an angle,. thus changeing the distance OR it is merely because the ant is holding its head up higher than its abdomen. eihter way we are talking about a small fraction of a millimeter difference,.. and the depth of feild is too shallow to compensate.

[boyhowdy]

The settings were ISO-200 Shutter-650 F-stop 7.1. The big problem here is that the ants were moving so I couldn't use a tripod. I had to manual focus of course with the sigma because AF is too slow. I just checked the butterfly exif and it is also 7.1 and 640. It seems I tried to stop it down but the pictures were way too dark. I just used natural light and it was cloudy that day. I assume that a higher ISO would have handled that. I am still trying to understand DOF and am not sure what settings would be best. I usually use the "P" mode and the "TV" mode for faster moving objects. Haven't tried the ""AV" mode much yet. Have used manual and bulb quite a lot. For these quick shots though, my brain doesn't work as fast as it used to so I am trying to decide what to do as the critters are buzzing or running all over the place! I did get a good close up of a beetle but it was dead! How do you set your camera for the great DOF shots?

Thanks for the help....

Patrick

[boyhowdy]

Ok I tried ISO 800 and stopped the aperture all the way down to 32 with shutter speed 100 and tried another bee shot. This one is much better for DOF although not perfect. I do have a lot of wind where I live so it is hard to keep everything from moving. The ant and butterfly were taken very close up and this is my next question. A macro lens is a 1:1 telephoto and the 180mm in D10 terms equals 288mm because of the 1.6 multiplier. Isn't it true that you lose a lot of DOF when in full telephoto mode? I mean I think I read somewhere that with a telephoto lens set at 300mm, the focusing in a shot as close as you can get (usually several feet) only varies by inches, so would it be possilbe that a high magnification macro very close up to a subject (within 4 inches) would give a very shallow DOF (maybe fractions of inches)??? I noticed that when I moved back and didn't get the "bee" as close, the DOF improved considerably, but when I got within inches from the subject, even at f32, the DOF appeared to be in fractions of an inch. This is of course unless I am still doing something wrong! Sorry about the image size but PS7 didn't compress it right at 60%. It has lots of colors I guess so I had to do less compression, thus, bigger file!

http://www.krcenterprises.com/pictures/bee-at-800-and-f32.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

You've asked a few questions that I have no answer to as I don't even own a macro.... YET!

But I do know this,..

Yes,. the more telephoto your lens is the flatter the depth of feild at a given aperture.

What I don't know is how closeness to the subject effects depth of feild with a macro lens,.. ?

Your last bee though definately has more depth of feild than the others,. but I am surpirsed that at 7.1 is was so flat. Again I don't know what it should be like,. but I was thinking you were at 2.8 or 4.0... hmmm.

So any macro experts?

Matthias?

Actually,. If you look at Matthias' back to back butterflys,. it is his composition that elimates DOF problems,.. look at the closest and furthest daisy pettles,.. they are blurred out too!

So it may be more experience in using macro as well.
I know all mine were extrememly flat DOF but i was using rings,. so I thought that was the issue.

[RichardtheSane]

The 10D 1.6 multiplier will not affect your DOF as it is not an optical magnification. The lens is still fousing as if it were a 35mm flac plane, but the 10D CMOS sensor is smaller than the 35mm plane so it captures the centre portion of the image. This gives the illusion of a 1.6x multiplier without actually magnifying anything.
:)

[Matthias]

DOF Problem are not real!
The problem ist the wrong focus set...sorry.

And the composition ist important and good macro.


But DOF is not a real Problem. You must learn handle small DOF ..i love it...it blurres the background .


Greatings

Matthias

[rdenney]

(Responding to "Boyhowdy")

Depth of field is related solely to the focal length of the lens and the degree of enlargement. The degree of enlargment tells you the standard of what is in focus, and the focal length the portion of the scene that will meet that standard.

Taking the degree of enlargement as being approximately the same across formats (i.e., your 10D image might be enlarged to 8x10, but your medium-format 6x9 might be enlarged to 30x40--both 13x enlargements and both viewed from proper viewing distance), then the only arbiter of depth of field is the focal length of the lens. The 180mm long telephoto on the 10D will have the same depth of field as the 180mm short portrait lens on a roll-film view camera.

This doesn't change in the macro range, though depth of field is a percentage of the focal distance, and for macro work that is a really tiny amount.

One advantage to a 50mm macro lens (with the 1:1 convertor if you want true macro) is that it will give you greater depth of field. In return for that benefit, you have to work sometimes impossibly close to the subject.

One thing that helps with the longer lens is that you can use much smaller apertures without noticeable loss of sharpness resulting from diffraction. I might be unwilling to use an aperture smaller than f/16 on a 50mm lens because the aperture hole becomes too small and diffraction is a problem, but I can shoot at f/32 on the 180mm and have a larger aperture hole and less diffraction. The smaller aperture setting gives you back some of the depth of field that you lost because of the focal length. This is how the historical photographers got good depth of field on their 12" normal lenses for the 8x10 format--they stopped them down to f/64 or even f/128.

The 100mm macro seems to be the most popular for insect work because it perhaps is the best balance between working distance, diffraction resistance, and depth of field. In other formats, I use a 105mm EL-Nikkor enlarging lens on a bellows, and this focal length is just wonderful for macro no matter what the format of the film.

Rick "with some closeups of tulip stamens from that lens in the scanning queue" Denney

[boyhowdy]

Thanks Rick. That explains a lot. I could have purchased the 105mm but I just assumed, being a guy, that bigger is better! I wanted super Macro shots without getting too close. I get much better depth of field by moving farther away from the "bug" but I wanted really BIG so I bought the biggest lens I could afford. I can get really close and "big" bugs but I lose that important DOF! I acually have some great shots with a 300mm telephoto that I cropped down and the DOF is very good. I guess I could just stay farther back and get good DOF and then crop as usual, or eventually buy a 105mm lens.

Thanks again for the help

Patrick

[Matthias]

I think with the Canon 180 3.5 Lens you can make great Photos from a long distance...look here

http://www.kreativ-foto.com/EOS-10D/EF180makro/10d0052.jpg

or

http://www.kreativ-foto.com/EOS-10D/EF180makro/10d0056.jpg

or

http://www.kreativ-foto.com/EOS-10D/EF180makro/10d0058.jpg


Greatings
Matthias
(wildlife only !)

[boyhowdy]

Ok I have figured it out Mathias.

I just wanted to get too close! Your shots with the 180 are great. The shots I originally took with my 300 telephoto were better, especially DOF, than the 180, but I was much farther away and then just cropped them. I just had this thing about getting as close as possible to make it as big as possible, but all you can see then are the eyes or a tongue or something. It is more beautiful how you take the pictures. They are definitely close enough and yet show the detail of the subject perfectly.

Thanks to everyone and their help on this subject. I will have to go out and try shooting some more critters now. How close were you in these last shots Mathias? Do you remember? What were the camera settings?

Thanks,

Patrick

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow Matthias,. those are incredible!

Real "Natural History" quality images!

[Matthias]

Thx Patrick and CDS !

The distance was 30 -50 cm to the Lens.

Greatings
Matthias

[rdenney]

You do make a strong case for the usefulness of the 180mm macro.

Any tool is useful, depending on the vision and skill of the photographer. You obviously know this tool well.

Rick "knowing he could never get images like this" Denney

[boyhowdy]

I am getting a little better at DOF Mathias. I shot this one, and of course it was very sunny outside, so there's some glare on the bee, but he came in focus a lot better and the DOF was blurred as in your shots. I noticed that this Sigma 180mm lens is very sensitive on focus because of its magnification factor I guess. It is almost impossible to get an in-focus shot without a tripod since my hands are getting old and shaky! I can breathe and it goes out of focus, mainly on shots that are closer to the lens though.

Patrick

http://www.krcenterprises.com/pictures/a-better-bee.jpg

[Matthias]

@Patrick,
very nice shot !!!

For the 180 Sigma you must use 1/400 sec for sharp Photos freehand. And NOT the AF only MF and it works.

Greatings
Matthias

[boyhowdy]

Thanks for all your help Mathias. Your shots are sooo beautiful. One question though, how do you get those critters to stay still for you? We have tons of lizards where I live but they don't stay still very long. We have lots of bugs but they always flit from one flower to the next. I end up trying to focus (manually) on a bug on a flower and the next thing I know, it is on another one and then I have to "find" it with the 180mm! It's like playing hop-scotch or something. Plus, trying to take an in-focus shot with my shaky hands is next to impossible without a tripod. I guess I could set one up and just wait for a bug to fly into the viewfinder!!!

Patrick

[beautifulimpressions]

wonderful shots and great sharp focus

how early in the morning do you get up to catch all the bugs sitting on the flowers like that? usually I am trying to catch the butterflys as they pause on a flower here and there and it is very difficult to focus for sharp pics like that.

[Matthias]

@Patrick,
all dragonflies and Butterflies you need X time to try and very (!) slow movement thats all :-)
For the last 50 cm you must take 1 minute!

http://www.kreativ-foto.net/bilder/temp/widderchen2.jpg


@beautifulimpressions,
all photos not in the morning!
It is difficult..rhight :-)


Matthias

[boyhowdy]

Are you using the Canon or the Sigma 180mm lens Mathias? I am using the Sigma. I am still having trouble getting a good focus. It seems that even a millimeter difference goes out of focus. I guess the aperture setting is VERY important here and just comes with experience. I have tried from f-3.5 to around f-8 and they still seem to be blurry on part of the body. I did a lizard yesterday and it was out of focus on its head and tail but the body was ok. I can shoot a bird at a couple of feet and it is fine, but an insect needs to be a little closer as your pictures show and that is when the lens goes out of focus so easily. I have tried ISO 400 for speed and all sorts of f-stops and shutter speeds. I would love to get insects like you do. But of course, where I live, the insects always seem to be on the go and never stop. Even butterflies and dragonflies don't seem to land. They just flitter around until they are gone. I need to go somewhere else!

Patrick

[rdenney]

Remember that depth of field is a function of focal length and aperture, not design. The Canon and Sigma lenses will have the same depth of field, though one may produce more pleasing backgrounds than the other (I don't know).

In other words: Macro ain't easy. You've already made more progress than I have the patience for. When Mathias talks about spending a whole minute creeping up the last couple of feet on a bug, well, that is commitment. Spending another five seconds to make sure it is focused on the correct part of the bug's antennae is part of that patience, I suppose. Part of the patience is finding a bug in repose, or the time of day when they are not as active. I suspect the good bug photographers know a thing or two about bugs and their behavior that I don't.

F/8 isn't that small an aperture for macro work. I took some images of tulips in my front yard with my 105mm setup, and stopped down to f/22 just to get most of the stamens in approximate focus. Even with ISO 100, you should be able to use 1/30 in sunlight at f/22, depending on macro magnification. Flowers don't move, of course, and I used a tripod. I asked nicely some butterflies to land on it once I had it set up, but they don't seem any more cooperative where I live than where you do. I just worked on the flower. But doing it that way might give you a feel what what would work with bugs, so that when you are stalking the critter while he is sleeping, you won't be having to think about technique issues like f-stops.

Of course, you can also get a ring flash, and then really not have to worry about the F-stops.

Rick "who just dabbles in macro work, and good macro work ain't for dabblers" Denney

[boyhowdy]

Thanks Rick. I figured that I must be very patient to do any type of animal nature photography. I guess it would be like watching one of those fishing shows where the guys sit there for hours and whisper and maybe catch one fish! I did get the robin on my birdbath finally however and it was in focus pretty good. Bugs are another story and Mathias really has his $#%^ together on those. His pictures are fantastic!!!

Patrick