Dandelion

First is horrible. Second is pretty good. Hello from a fellow 24-105 owner

The second image is much nicer but I have a question. Depth of field is inversely proportional to lens to subject distance, meaning that being closer to the subject will reduce the depth of field. The counter to this is due to the focal length which increases depth of field inversely proportional to focal length, meaning a wide angle will provide greater depth of field than a telephoto for the same aperture. If you used your zoom what was the focal length and how did you overcome the minimum focus distance? I ask because F/4 on my 100 macro is not enough to produce this depth of field in it's entirety as seen in image 2. I usually stop down to f/11 and take what I can get. Of course with multi-shot focusing (not sure the right title for the techinque) there are ways to increase depth of field but it's work to do so.

jetcode wrote in post #11193975
The second image is much nicer but I have a question. Depth of field is inversely proportional to lens to subject distance, meaning that being closer to the subject will reduce the depth of field is reduced. The counter to this is due to the focal length which increases depth of field inversely proportional to focal length, meaning a wide angle will provide greater depth of field than a telephoto for the same aperture. If you used your zoom what was the focal length and how did you overcome the minimum focus distance? I ask because F/4 on my 100 macro is not enough to produce this depth of field in it's entirety as seen in image 2. I usually stop down to f/11 and take what I can get. Of course with multi-shot focusing (not sure the right title for the techinque) there are ways to increase depth of field but it's work to do so.

First, thanks to everyone for the comments. I have learn a lot from this.

jecode, The only question that I can answer for you is about the focal length. The focal length was 105mm. I was sitting on the ground, difficult to get up and down for a 70 year old, when I snapped the picture. The flower was on a stem about 4 inches high. Would that have something to do with the DOF?

Overtrim wrote in post #11194051
First, thanks to everyone for the comments. I have learn a lot from this.

jecode, The only question that I can answer for you is about the focal length. The focal length was 105mm. I was sitting on the ground, difficult to get up and down for a 70 year old, when I snapped the picture. The flower was on a stem about 4 inches high. Would that have something to do with the DOF?

Not really. In addition to the focal length and aperture, you'd need to know the distance from the lens to the flower. The MFD for the 24-105L is about 1.5 feet, but I doubt that you shot at this distance unless the flower was really tiny without much depth. I say this because the DOF (based on your 105mm/f4 numbers) at 1.5 feet is pretty razor thin at only 0.12 inches. Its either a really tiny flower, or I'd guess that you were about 3 or 4 feet away from the flower?

thanks Overtrim. have a great time in Israel.

The two images are worlds apart. Try to figure what you did in the second one and practice it!
It is better focused, has a nicer background color and has better light.
Congrats on your new lens.

argyle wrote in post #11194286
Not really. In addition to the focal length and aperture, you'd need to know the distance from the lens to the flower. The MFD for the 24-105L is about 1.5 feet, but I doubt that you shot at this distance unless the flower was really tiny without much depth. I say this because the DOF (based on your 105mm/f4 numbers) at 1.5 feet is pretty razor thin at only 0.12 inches. Its either a really tiny flower, or I'd guess that you were about 3 or 4 feet away from the flower?

The flower is approx. 1 inch diameter. I shot with AF and approx. 14-15 inches away.

Again thanks to all!

Overtrim wrote in post #11195032
The flower is approx. 1 inch diameter. I shot with AF and approx. 14-15 inches away.

Again thanks to all!

Are you sure? First, that's less than the MFD. Second, at 15 inches, your DOF would have been 0.06 inches. Something doesn't seem right with the numbers (focal length, aperture, distance). But who am I to contend otherwise?