Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 01 Sep 2009 (Tuesday) 10:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

 
kandyredcoi
Goldmember
Avatar
1,611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: So. Cal. (951)
     
Sep 14, 2010 04:44 |  #1441

are most of these photos used for macro shot "wide open" ???


Unique Custom Watch Straps--> www.CTDesigns.us (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
curiousgeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,831 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2006
Location: London
     
Sep 14, 2010 04:58 |  #1442

kandyredcoi wrote in post #10905275 (external link)
are most of these photos used for macro shot "wide open" ???

The DOF is thin enough even at f13, I would never use 2.8 for macro work. Only for portraits.


Photos from Iceland (external link) | London (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon 24-70mm f/4L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Speedlite 430EX II | Canon Powershot G9

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
2,845 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 112
Joined Sep 2009
     
Sep 14, 2010 06:19 |  #1443

curiousgeorge wrote in post #10905299 (external link)
The DOF is thin enough even at f13, I would never use 2.8 for macro work. Only for portraits.

I've used F2.8 for macro shots plenty of times. Granted I wouldn't use it for a true 1:1 macro. However, I've learned that using low DOF can really isolated a single part of your subject that is of interest and result in a better shot than if the entire subject is in focus.


Please visit my Flickr (external link) and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II-RT, Canon 600EX II-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ancistrus
Member
233 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Derbyshire, U.K.
     
Sep 14, 2010 15:04 |  #1444

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10905463 (external link)
I've used F2.8 for macro shots plenty of times. Granted I wouldn't use it for a true 1:1 macro. However, I've learned that using low DOF can really isolated a single part of your subject that is of interest and result in a better shot than if the entire subject is in focus.


I agree. Some good images can be made. This is f2.8 trying (and partly succeeding) to emphasise the unusual shape of the spider's head or the head of the bush cricket eating the flower..


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
curiousgeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,831 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2006
Location: London
     
Sep 14, 2010 15:57 |  #1445

ancistrus wrote in post #10908133 (external link)
I agree. Some good images can be made. This is f2.8 trying (and partly succeeding) to emphasise the unusual shape of the spider's head or the head of the bush cricket eating the flower..

The first one seems to be OOF.

I agree you can use f2.8, but not at close distances, and only if the subject allows. For example in your second shot only the eyes need to be in focus and as they're small you can get away with a shallow DOF. If you're shooting flowers however, the intricate detail with a relatively large depth (eg my second shot above) will need much greater DOF.


Photos from Iceland (external link) | London (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon 24-70mm f/4L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Speedlite 430EX II | Canon Powershot G9

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
2,845 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 112
Joined Sep 2009
     
Sep 14, 2010 17:23 |  #1446

curiousgeorge wrote in post #10908497 (external link)
The first one seems to be OOF.

I agree you can use f2.8, but not at close distances, and only if the subject allows. For example in your second shot only the eyes need to be in focus and as they're small you can get away with a shallow DOF. If you're shooting flowers however, the intricate detail with a relatively large depth (eg my second shot above) will need much greater DOF.

I still disagree, flowers can be shot wide open. You simply have to be more selective of what you want to emphasize with the focus. Here are two examples from my own work:

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4991509308_bd0e8fa2f6_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/purduery/499150​9308/  (external link)
IMG_7628 (external link) by Ryan Leemhuis Photography (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4936240582_a35314ea8d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/purduery/493624​0582/  (external link)
Dreamy Artemisia (external link) by Ryan Leemhuis Photography (external link), on Flickr

Please visit my Flickr (external link) and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II-RT, Canon 600EX II-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kandyredcoi
Goldmember
Avatar
1,611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: So. Cal. (951)
     
Sep 15, 2010 04:28 |  #1447

well this lens def doesnt dissappoint wide open...i think i want one :)

thanks guys, keep the great pics coming!


Unique Custom Watch Straps--> www.CTDesigns.us (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jef96
Senior Member
Avatar
815 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jan 2010
Location: England
     
Sep 15, 2010 08:11 |  #1448

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4574441730_3fa1d9f14d_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jef96/457444173​0/  (external link)
Mend My Broken Wings (external link) by JEF 96 (external link), on Flickr

Canon EOS 1DX | Canon EOS 6D | 16-35mm f/2.8 L MKII | 24-70mm f/2.8 L MKII | 24-105mm f/4.0 L | 100mm macro f/2.8 L | 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS MKII | 400mm f/5.6 L | EF 2x II | 580 EX II | MR-14EX |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
curiousgeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,831 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2006
Location: London
     
Sep 15, 2010 09:11 |  #1449

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10909002 (external link)
I still disagree, flowers can be shot wide open. You simply have to be more selective of what you want to emphasize with the focus. Here are two examples from my own work:

As I said, it depends on your subject. Your first image works (it's hard to judge the second because it looks soft), but 2.8 wouldn't have worked for my shots because the vast majority of the image would have been OOF, and so too many distracting elements.

I didn't say f2.8 can't be used, just that for most of the shots I've taken so far it would have been inappropriate.


Photos from Iceland (external link) | London (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon 24-70mm f/4L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Speedlite 430EX II | Canon Powershot G9

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
Avatar
4,197 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1032
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Carol Stream, Illinois
     
Sep 15, 2010 10:47 |  #1450

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i15.photobucket​.com …0Shows/Hooters0​912005.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i15.photobucket​.com …0Shows/Hooters0​912004.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickr (external link) - Facebook (external link) - Smoke Photography - - Sound-Activated Paint

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jef96
Senior Member
Avatar
815 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jan 2010
Location: England
     
Sep 16, 2010 06:22 |  #1451

Not quite the "All American Girl" as above - This is all I get to shoot with my macro lens - I think she's female!

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/4840377638_81edacb18e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jef96/484037763​8/  (external link)
So that's how Rice Krispies are made! (external link) by JEF 96 (external link), on Flickr

Canon EOS 1DX | Canon EOS 6D | 16-35mm f/2.8 L MKII | 24-70mm f/2.8 L MKII | 24-105mm f/4.0 L | 100mm macro f/2.8 L | 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS MKII | 400mm f/5.6 L | EF 2x II | 580 EX II | MR-14EX |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ancistrus
Member
233 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Derbyshire, U.K.
     
Sep 16, 2010 14:02 |  #1452

curiousgeorge wrote in post #10908497 (external link)
The first one seems to be OOF.

I agree you can use f2.8, but not at close distances, and only if the subject allows. For example in your second shot only the eyes need to be in focus and as they're small you can get away with a shallow DOF. If you're shooting flowers however, the intricate detail with a relatively large depth (eg my second shot above) will need much greater DOF.

It is slightly OOF that's why I said partly succeeding. I'm not sure what you mean by '.... you can use f2.8 .... and only if the subject allows'. I find most camera settings work best if they are tailored to the subject. It's a bit like saying you can use f16 for a landscape only because the subject allows it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeDotePhoto
Member
128 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
     
Sep 17, 2010 01:43 as a reply to  @ ancistrus's post |  #1453

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4997197397_ce2a2a4305_b.jpg

My second day with this baby.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bridge99
Goldmember
Avatar
3,325 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Kent, UK
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:59 |  #1454

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/4995446817_9dbe3ec708_b.jpg

1DX II 5DMK3 II 24-70L II 35L II 85L II 100L II 135L II 300L II 70-200L II
bridgephotography (external link) 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
curiousgeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,831 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2006
Location: London
     
Sep 17, 2010 10:09 |  #1455

ancistrus wrote in post #10921760 (external link)
It is slightly OOF that's why I said partly succeeding. I'm not sure what you mean by '.... you can use f2.8 .... and only if the subject allows'. I find most camera settings work best if they are tailored to the subject. It's a bit like saying you can use f16 for a landscape only because the subject allows it.

f16 gives you large DOF and that's not the issue here.

In your first shot, the bit of the flower in focus has shallow depth, therefore f2.8 (shallow DOF) is suitable for this particular subject, ie it will give you the DOF you need.

My subject had much greater depth with the complex structure at the centre of the flower, not to mention the long petals which curve towards the camera. So I needed a much greater DOF to get as much as possible in focus. I didn't have a background some way back which could be thrown out of focus, like you have.

That's what I mean by the subject being suitable or unsuitable for a shallow DOF.


Photos from Iceland (external link) | London (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon 24-70mm f/4L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Speedlite 430EX II | Canon Powershot G9

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,688,861 views & 7,730 likes for this thread
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is TerryPink
800 guests, 151 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.