jumping spider

Any comments on any aspects - composition, exposure, color etc most welcome. Which is the best?
All shot at f22, 1/125, ISO100, with 70-200 L with Kenko tubes. 580EX flash with strobella.

#1

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

Ok I knew I didn't want to open this but was curious, that is one ugly SOB! Great photos and good for you for getting that close. I am not scared of spiders but this little guy will haunt me for the rest of the day. The colors are great, I really like #1 although all of them are really neat! Freaky, but neat!

Bravo for getting so close to that ugly little critter. I would have to say that #2 and #4 are my favorites. All have good colors and texture.

although he is ugly, he is small, about 3mm across. Prior to taking these shots he was jumping over me and my 6yr old son, before I transferred him to the plant in the photo.

To the macro buffs out there, is this the best I will get with the tubes?

It is cropped approx 50%. (Here is one of the many originals)

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

Great series, amazing to think only 3mm real size, well done.

#4. very nice shot. gives me goosebumps though.... haha

georgia from jay hsiang studio

Jay Hsiang Studio

Los Angeles Wedding Photography

Engagement Photography

Destination Wedding Photography

pelooyen wrote in post #11047898
although he is ugly, he is small, about 3mm across. Prior to taking these shots he was jumping over me and my 6yr old son, before I transferred him to the plant in the photo.

To the macro buffs out there, is this the best I will get with the tubes?

It is cropped approx 50%. (Here is one of the many originals)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

Is it time to move to a dedicated macro or am I missing something in my settings?

You can do better but it depends on what lens your using, I wouldn't expect too much from your zoom lenses since they are so long? I use primes so if we take a 50mm f1.4 for example the maximum magnification is 0.15x. With a set of tubes being 62mm we can calculate ((0.15 x 50) + 62) /50 = 1.39 which is 1.39X life sized.

For argument sake If your other lenses had the same magnification to start this is how they would compare. These will be for the 28, 35 and 100 you can see the smaller the lens the greater the magnification.

((0.15 x 28 ) + 62) /28 = 2.36 which is 2.36X life sized
((0.15 x 35) + 62) /35 = 1.92 which is 1.92X life sized
((0.15 x 100) + 62) /100 = 0.77 which is 0.77X life sized

Adding tubes to an existing macro lens say the 100mm f2.8 that is already a 1:1 macro you would get

((1 x 100) + 62) /100 = 1.62 which is 1.62X life sized

So a macro lens that is already a macro will get better results than a non macro lens for the same length.

This is how I understand it, I hope it helps.

If you really want to get close you can put a 50mm on the tubes then reverse mount another 50mm on that lens. The formula to figure that one out is beyond me but you should be able to fill the frame with just a couple of the spiders eyes. You would have to manually focus but a couple of nifty fifties is cheaper than a dedicated macro since you already have the tubes.

Thanks ChuckingFluff, helpful advice. You have convinced me to get a nifty fifty - hopefully can afford the f1.4, otherwise I will settle on the f1.8

BTW, here he is right at home, I took this with your advice, using the 28-135mm

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

That last one is awesome. Look for used lenses theres some great deals out there and people have bearly used them.

jacksonvillenp wrote in post #11044711
Bravo for getting so close to that ugly little critter. I would have to say that #2 and #4 are my favorites. All have good colors and texture.

My thoughts as well. Very nice.


kb