100-400 upclose

I am having just as much fun with this lens taking pictures up-close as I am at a distance. This is a slight crop. Tell me what you think.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Great shot, did you use extension tubes for this

Thanks. No extensions. This is taken at approximately (4ft) the minimum focus distance. Thats the best part. Great lens

Pretty amazing! This is the next lens on my list.

thanks for the comments. Did I mention how nice this lens is

Wow, great shot. Did you use a tripod?

thank you. No tripod.
I took these with the 100-400 too:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=161520

Very nice.

Dan

thanks again

Good one. Only problem with that lens for butterfly shooting is the weight. It can be tough to hold steady as long as needed at times. Did you mean to get so much DOF? I think an OOF BG would look good.

The best part is how far away you are from the subject. You can pretty much sit still and wait till they land within 4-5 ft of you, then compose.
I was using 7.1, I guess 5.6 may have been better, but not sure it would have been enough. It's already pretty shallow, the left tip of his wing is a little OOF. I think it was closer to me.

You seem to have the same problem I have when using this lens close up. Becuase the lens is relatively slow, when you zoom in it compresses the depth of field so some of the image is in focus but other parts aren't. If you look closely at the outer edges of the wings, they are a little blurry. I am trying to trade/sell the 100-400 and get the 70-200L 2.8. Still very good pictures...you can see mine at www.pbase.com/gwinder/​butterflies

nice shot i really like that lens... i have only used one on lone....

Minimum focusing distance on the 100-400 is about 5.9 ft. Very nice shot, by the way.

Composition is very nice. I'd drop mid-range levels, which will darken the very pale (nearly blown-out) yellow on the wing on the right. Doing that also will add a bit more drama to an already good image. The light was a little hot, which was beyond your control. A polarizing filter would have tamed that, too.

My 100-400L is a bit soft wide open at max magnification. I use it a lot for near-macro compositions, and will use extension tubes to give it macro capability (definitely need a strong tripod for that!). I prefer to shoot it at f8, which removes any lingering softness. Because it's slow (at max mag f5.6) I have to watch what's in the background especially. I love bokeh, and the 100-400L is good at that, but its DOF can't be better than what it is, so I'm careful to ensure the background is far enough away to achieve the bokeh I want. Can't really pick and choose with a butterfly in this position. However, if you get one on a flower, you can drop down to the ground and shoot it against a farther away background if one is available, and if the background is not too bright.

So many things to consider, so little time.

I'd never trade my 100-400L IS f45.-5.6 for the 70-200L IS f2.8 unless I converted to shooting sports exclusively. For wildlife, the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 (even when the 70-200 is shot with the 2x TC). With the latter combo, you get the same magnification, but the image is degraded by the TC and the f-stop capability of the lens is compromised. With a good monopod, I've taken crystal sharp images with the 100-400L IS down to 1/30, as long as the subject isn't moving much.

I dropped mid-range levels in photoshop and saturated just the least bit. Too saturated? I think the swallowtail is right on, compared with the ones I've photographed. The green leaf is over the edge, but I think the rusty leaves are OK on saturation.

Like It? Don't like it? A little too much Velvia going on in my version? It's all IMO, and my IMO is no better than anyone else's IMO.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE