Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2025 9:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:25 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Hey thuyLa, my macros are taken with a body nowhere near as good as yours but with the same lens, the magic is in the technique, composition and processing. Don't forget there is a reason why sharpening tool was invented in the first place!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 568
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fizbot/
thuyLa wrote:
Thanks Conac.

I've been playing with this new lens for a week now. Could you guys tell me whatsoever if this photo is sharp? My photos are not even as sharp as some of the photos in here. (although I use tripod, IS turn off, rank up the shutter to max 32, 2 sec timer used).

So, here is one example I just took:

Resized image, ISO:100, f32, 10s, 0ev, no PS or editing. no crop as well.
Image

Thanks.


Near focus point seems fine.

One thing to keep in mind with Macro photography is that since the subjects are so close to your lens, that the Depth of Field (ie. what's in focus) can be VERY VERY small depending on your setup.

There are many Depth of Field calculator's out there such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For this shot if I guess the distance to to the objects to be 1 foot, then @f32 on a 5D2, your
Near limit 0.98 ft
Far limit 1.02 ft
Total 0.04 ft

which is about what it seems to be in the image.

For contrast, if what you were taking a photo of was 30 feet away, you would have just about the entire world in focus:
Near limit 16.1 ft
Far limit 227.7 ft
Total 211.6 ft


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:41 am 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Just keep in mind that in focus doesn't necessarily mean sharp


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
This is probably a stupid question, but typically, don't Macro lenses have a smallest aperture than typical similar lenses of similar FL (f/32, etc).

Does that mean the lens has a larger region where diffraction is an issue, and if so, what's the point?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:16 pm
Posts: 659
Location: downtown
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
yup, 100mm macro goes till f/32

i see diffraction same as being wide open. yes, images will be sharper in the mid f range but it doesn't mean either extreme is crap. it all depends on the DOF you're going for.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:31 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
I think diffraction kicks in depending on the largest aperture of the lens, not the smallest. I.E. if the lens is 2.8 it will kick in faster than in a lens with max aperture of 5.6. F32 is normal for telephoto lenses, not just macro, right?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Today I switched to FULL mode on the lens, and take a lot of random photos, I don't know what wrong with me or my vision. The images I took, they are pretty sharp now. So, it's all good... I'm pretty happy now... :lol:

Thanks guys for the inputs and helps.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:04 pm
Posts: 853
Location: Markham
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
This was all done with the 100mm f2.8L IS macro

http://www.vimeo.com/11584794


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:29 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Cute and well done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:04 pm
Posts: 853
Location: Markham
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
ions wrote:
Cute and well done.


Thanks

the 100mm f2.8L is great for video too, there are a few instances it does weird things though...the like the twitching aperture while idle in live view/movie mode and overly jumpy IS.

Otherwise its a solid lens.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Sorry, to bring back this old topic.

I've been using the lens and I love it, but I want higher magnification, will Kenko tubes set fit my need?

thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:13 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Yup, they'll work. There are costs in IQ though. How much exactly I dunno.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
ions wrote:
Yup, they'll work. There are costs in IQ though. How much exactly I dunno.


you meant decrease the IQ if using the set?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:32 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Yeah, anytime (for argument's sake let's say it's so all the time) you change the way the light moves through the lens it's not doing so as optimally as it would otherwise. All about compromise, magnification for a degradation in image quality.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:50 am 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
don't be scared though, you won't even notice it


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:00 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
I don't think you'll notice any loss in quality using extension tubes. There are no glass elements in them because they're basically just hollow tubes. If you used a teleconverter then you'd get some degradation for sure. There are also closeup magnification filters that you can attach to the lens to also increase magnification.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Carlton wrote:
I don't think you'll notice any loss in quality using extension tubes. There are no glass elements in them because they're basically just hollow tubes. If you used a teleconverter then you'd get some degradation for sure. There are also closeup magnification filters that you can attach to the lens to also increase magnification.

I agree. There is a loss of light (about 1 f-stop - it now has to travel further) but since there's no extra glass there's no loss in IQ.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group