Canon 100mm macro lense

[Tim Vaughan]

Could someone please post links to macros taken with this lense? It's a 1:1 and I want to make sure I can use it for bees. Any other macro lense for a Canon Rebel that you guys like?

[LazyPhotographer]

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31329

If you want an actual bee.. I do have one somewhere.

[Tim Vaughan]

Thanks, I'd like that if you can dig it up.

Regards

[JZaun]

:? Here is one,, not a bee though :D Taken with the canon 100mm macro



http://gallery.bytephoto.com/data/3104/51IMG_2043_copy.JPG

JZ

[Gibmeister]

Here is a dragon fly for you but it was taken with the sigma 105mm macro.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=908760&outx=600&oq=0

and I will even through in a fly

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1158749&outx=600&oq=0

[Tim Vaughan]

Do you have anything with a better DoF? Thanks

[Gibmeister]

Tim,

I tend to shoot fairly shallow DOF when using this lens. Here is one that has a little more DOF.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4238868&outx=600&oq=0

[Tom W]

Do you have anything with a better DoF? Thanks

Do you mean better by "deeper" or shallower?

[Gibmeister]

I mean deeper dof. With this lens I was usually trying to capture a moving object hand held or with a monopod. I had to keep the dof shallow to get a faster shutter speed. The lens has an F-Stop range from 2.8 to 45. The mushroom was shot at f11 and the dragon fly and the fly were at f6.7.

[Tom W]

I mean deeper dof. With this lens I was usually trying to capture a moving object hand held or with a monopod. I had to keep the dof shallow to get a faster shutter speed. The lens has an F-Stop range from 2.8 to 45. The mushroom was shot at f11 and the dragon fly and the fly were at f6.7.

I understand and agree that deeper is usually better, but I wasn't certain that that is what Tim Vaughan meant when he said 'better'.

Nice shots, BTW. I'm leaning towards buying this lens - it seems the perfect macro lens (and I've been fiddling around with extension tubes long enough).

[LazyPhotographer]

Thanks, I'd like that if you can dig it up.

Regards

Nothing fantastic, just playing around in the parking lot. ISO200, 1/250, F8, handheld.

http://home.san.rr.com/lazyphotographer/images/IMG_3048a.jpg

[Tim Vaughan]

That's what I wanted, thanks. I think this is the lense for me.

[nucki]

hi, here are some shots take freehand

http://www.pixelbeisser.at/exhibit/photo.php?photo=251
or that one!

http://www.pixelbeisser.at/exhibit/photo.php?photo=252
Its a fantastic lens, but you need to use the hood almost everytime

[ssim]

I don't have any good bugs or insects to show you but this image was a test for my 100 after I bought it. It is deadly sharp and a great lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/21189705.jpg

[Tim Vaughan]

Yes, I see that this is what I want, thanks all. Can you tell me more about the hood you mention? And did you use a ring light with the bee shot?

[nucki]

Yes, I see that this is what I want, thanks all. Can you tell me more about the hood you mention? And did you use a ring light with the bee shot?

The problem with the hood is because the front element of the lens, is really in front. not as i.e. the tamron SP 90 Macro, there is the "last" or the first, how you like, lens a few cm in the body of the lens. so its not that delicately for scattered light as the canon.

best regards
Peter

[LazyPhotographer]

Yes, I see that this is what I want, thanks all. Can you tell me more about the hood you mention? And did you use a ring light with the bee shot?

No light ring... just good old all natural sun light.

[Adam Hicks]

Funny you should mention it. I JUST picked this lens up on eBay mint in the box with all papers and absolutely no sign of use for $360. I took my first pictures with it not two hours ago...

http://www.golilm.com/DSLR/ft_worth_bee_May_03.jpg

No post processing other than a BIG crop. The detail is great considering the image was cropped with about 80% gone now.

Adam

[Tom W]

That's sweet, Adam.

[Tim Vaughan]

Adam, if you get a chance, I'd love to see a couple more macros from you, especially if you can get the bug bigger, even if it means by increasing the size in your processor.

[melor]

http://www.melor.com/gallery/public_contest/small/CRW_4432.jpg


Paul

[Tim Vaughan]

Thanks, Paul. What f/ setting did you use? That flower is great, but for my interest I'd like to see a bit better DoF without having to spend a bundle on a ring flash.

[WebErika]

What is DoF?

Thanks!

[Belmondo]

What is DoF?

Thanks!

Please forgive our 'verbal shorthand'.

It's 'depth of field'.

Here's one explanation:
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/950/depth-of-field.html

[kd6lor]

Thanks, Paul. What f/ setting did you use? That flower is great, but for my interest I'd like to see a bit better DoF without having to spend a bundle on a ring flash.

The picture was shot at f16 and 1/2 second, ISO 100. You need to look at DOF charts. At close focus range a DOF will be very shallow even at very small apertures ( high f-numbers ). This is an issue with any macro lens and while a flash can give you more light and allow smaller apertures, the other option is to increase exposure time like I did in this example.

Paul

[Tim Vaughan]

Paul, do I understand you right that slower exposure allows greater DoF at the same f/ setting?

Thanks

[kd6lor]

Paul, do I understand you right that slower exposure allows greater DoF at the same f/ setting?

Thanks

No, exposure time itself doesn't alter the DOF. I was saying that instead of increasing light with a ring flash, one could increase exposure time. The original poster was thinking a ring flash could increase DOF.

Paul

[Tim Vaughan]

I see, thanks much for your reply.

[WebErika]

What is DoF?

Thanks!

Please forgive our 'verbal shorthand'.

It's 'depth of field'.

Here's one explanation:
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/950/depth-of-field.html


Wow. Thank you very much! :D