My first Macro

Hi Guys,

I rented a canon 100 F 2.8 Macro lens for a few days ( I am taking a wild flower workshop this weekend). Here is a picture I took of a butterfly. I would have like to get close but that was as close as I could get to it. When I buy a macro lens I think I wll get a 150mm.

It was overcast outside and I did not use a flash.


Eric

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

stick with the 100 if I were you - most times easier to get good results with than longer but heavier lens.

It is a little on the soft side, but that is probably because you are hand holding it. I pretty much cannot hand hold the 100 mm f/2.8, because the depth of field is so shallow. My hand shake is severly exaggerated when I try to hand hold that lens at anything other than a portrait.

Nonetheless, great shot for your first macro. My first shot was so blurry it could not be thought of as a picture by any stretch of the imagination.

kwsanders wrote:
It is a little on the soft side, but that is probably because you are hand holding it. I pretty much cannot hand hold the 100 mm f/2.8, because the depth of field is so shallow. My hand shake is severly exaggerated when I try to hand hold that lens at anything other than a portrait.

Nonetheless, great shot for your first macro. My first shot was so blurry it could not be thought of as a picture by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes I was hand holding, I plan on getting a tripod soon.

Thanks for the input.

Eric

Use a tripod and a shutter release. Also, do you best to always get the eyes in focus. Take a few if you need to. I loved my 100mm 2.8 until i sent it into the sand when my tripod lopped over. It's super sharp, i would stick with it.

I'd agree with racketman, go with the 100mm rather than the 150/180mm option. The longer lens are better in some ways, but they are a lot heavier and harder to handle. The only thing you'll lose with a 100mm lens vs the longer lens is working distance (of course optical quality varies from brand to brand/lens to lens).

The shot is quite nice, but a bit soft and to my eyes has a green cast to it.

Dave

I dont see how you can shot insects with a tripod, they move so much you will miss every shot setting the tripod up, maybe a monopod.

Interesting that you mention this. I was at my wife's grandmother's house yesterday near where our new house is being built. I had the 100 mm f/2.8 on my camera (XT+grip) with 58 mm of tubes. This was all on a tripod.

I sat the tripod down next to a flower with the pistol grip cocked over so that the lens was at a 45 degree angle to the ground. As soon as I let go and stood up, I saw the thing tumping over. I caught it just as the edge hit the dirt. It had a little dust on the outer edge and on the lens. A quick blow off cleaned it up. I did some quick focusing tests to make sure there was no dirt inside. All seems well.

As for the 100 mm f/2.8, it is definitely a great lens. I highly suggest it.

cool shot but as dave says the white balance looks a little cool with a blue/green cast
when i bought my sigma 105 I tried the 150 also...I just found it way too heavy compared to the 105 for hand holding... another thing i didn't like about it was the greater working distance.... yep you read that right..... I found that being farther away with the lens set at 1:1 it was harder to actually get the subject into the field of view than it was with the 105.

if you want to use support for shooting bugs I'd also say go for a monopod .... it's a lot easier/quicker to set up 1 leg compared to 3 on a tripod and you can also put the monopod in between bushes and places a tripod simply cannot go...

I would stick with the 100mm macro for most insects its the optimum length in terms of shake, weight and working distance. Most insects are very aproachable with it. I have got up to 4:1 or 5:1 with an MP-E 65mm on some flies and other insects and that only has a 40mm working distance at that magnification.

For butterflys, damselflys and dragonflys that are difficult to get close to but don't need that much magnification use an ordinary telephoto lens with tubes. I use the 300/f4 IS or the 200/f2.8 for this.

It's hard. You just need to know how to apraoch animals and insects. The best way is to start quite a ways back, take a few shots, then just get closer and closer. Take it SLOW, and the bug will ussually settle if you just give it time. I reccomend taking shots from a distance in order to get exposure and such set correctly, and also to let the bug get more comfortable with you. I know, this sounds crazy, but give the bugs space. Just give them to settle. Butterflies really suck becuase you gotta chase them all over and keep an eye on them until they land.

horror stories!!!!!!!! I caught my tripod going over with the 20D and 100-300 on it just as I had let off the focus ring to grab the remote release, I was quick enough to grab it before it had any time to pick up speed and get away from me. I had my camera pointed up towards the stars but it was on a slightly uneven surface. I've decided that the camera doesn't go on the tripod un-attended unless- It's just the kit lens and if not the kit lens or lighter then there's gotta be a counter weight hooked to the center columb, the legs are in the middle wide position or I am holding it and using the quick release plate more often.

That 100mm f/2.8 Canon Macro is a good lens, a great lens as a matter of fact. You will get better with it in time and its really worth the cash. I also like the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Canon Macro USM. A lot lighter, just as sharp, maybe even a little sharper IMO than the 100mm f/2.8. However with the 60mm, you have to be much more stealthy in your approach to timid insects, which in a way makes it much more fun and indeed challanging. Makes for a good general purpose scenic lens also, the 60mm.

Thanks for all the input guys. I will try it with a tripod next time.

Eric

Excellent shot for first try
Brian V.