Anyone using a telephoto?

[J-see]

I find it handy out in the woods ,to use the diopter, but if I had the dedicated macro ,, thats what I think I'd use.,, is there much difference?

It's a world of difference.

You have 1:1 and good quality without having to drive aperture towards insanity. Diopters are great when the conditions are perfect. When there's plenty of light and you don't zoom too close, you can take really nice shots. But once the light is low, the aperture the diopter demands comes at too high price. With my macro I don't suffer that problem. Evidently my DOF is still thin when going 1:1 but it's more manageable. Today was a pretty bad day and I shot everything wide open. With the zoom that would have resulted in nothing but haze.

I can too take shots from a distance while my diopter compromised the other end of the zoom too. The zoom had a minimal distance of 1.5m. That's 0.75D to 0D (infinity). But with a +4 it only is of use between 4.75D and 4D which is between 21 and 25cm.

The advantage of the diopter was larger magnification. The macro is 1:1 and that's it.

I'll still be using diopters once in a while but if I have to pick only one of both, it's gonna be the macro for sure. Nothing beats a lens solely built for that purpose.

 

[Stoshowicz]

It's a world of difference.

You have 1:1 and good quality without having to drive aperture towards insanity. Diopters are great when the conditions are perfect. When there's plenty of light and you don't zoom too close, you can take really nice shots. But once the light is low, the aperture the diopter demands comes at too high price. With my macro I don't suffer that problem. Evidently my DOF is still thin when going 1:1 but it's more manageable. Today was a pretty bad day and I shot everything wide open. With the zoom that would have resulted in nothing but haze.

I can too take shots from a distance while my diopter compromised the other end of the zoom too. The zoom had a minimal distance of 1.5m. That's 0.75D to 0D (infinity). But with a +4 it only is of use between 4.75D and 4D which is between 21 and 25cm.

The advantage of the diopter was larger magnification. The macro is 1:1 and that's it.

I'll still be using diopters once in a while but if I have to pick only one of both, it's gonna be the macro for sure. Nothing beats a lens solely built for that purpose.

Good answer J-see, but I'd still like to ask another question or two, if I may on this.

1) My 70-300mm VR also has a min focus distance of about 4.5 feet, at 300mm .. how is the special built macro different on that?
(I thought the whole point was that they had a closer min focus distance'.)
2) In order to get sufficient depth of field , dont you still end up pushing the f-number up to around 22 anyway? , so more of the bug is within it?
If I need more light, the on-camera flash is right there to supply some - I can use a diffusing element inbetween to reduce the flash induced shadows.
3) with the dedicated macro alone , you cant get better than 1:1 ?

 

[J-see]

Good answer J-see, but I'd still like to ask another question or two, if I may on this.

1) My 70-300mm VR also has a min focus distance of about 4.5 feet, at 300mm to target.. how is the special built macro different on that?
(I thought the whole point was that they had a closer min focus distance'.)
2) In order to get sufficient depth of field , dont you still end up pushing the f-number up to around 22 anyway? , so more of the bug is within it?
If I need more light, the on-camera flash is right there to supply some - I can use a diffusing element inbetween to reduce the flash induced shadows.
3) with the dedicated macro alone , you cant get better than 1:1 ?

I can use my lens from infinity to 0.5m which implies that I can switch from an ant at 1:1 to shooting birds at a large distance. It is usable in the whole range, not only the macro range. I assume that's the same for all macro lenses. The problem with the diopter is that it decreases the minimal focal distance on the zoom by increasing the lens' diopter value but what you gain at one end, you lose at the other.

I indeed still need to push the aperture but because I have a good distance, not so much as before. The closer I get, the harder the DOF battle becomes. But I can opt for shooting it at 1:2, 1:3 or anything the conditions force me. In that I can still get reasonable good shots but of course at the price of a smaller subject. But for web use, you can get away with quite some cropping.

The macro is 1:1 indeed. but that's pretty huge when it comes to bugs or plants. Quite often 1:1 is too much. Something like a decent bee as an example is already bigger than my sensor at 1:1 and forces me to step back unless I prefer only parts of its body.

 

[Stoshowicz]

I can use my lens from infinity to 0.5m which implies that I can switch from an ant at 1:1 to shooting birds at a large distance. It is usable in the whole range, not only the macro range. I assume that's the same for all macro lenses. The problem with the diopter is that it decreases the minimal focal distance on the zoom by increasing the lens' diopter value but what you gain at one end, you lose at the other.

I indeed still need to push the aperture but because I have a good distance, not so much as before. The closer I get, the harder the DOF battle becomes. But I can opt for shooting it at 1:2, 1:3 or anything the conditions force me. In that I can still get reasonable good shots but of course at the price of a smaller subject. But for web use, you can get away with quite some cropping.

The macro is 1:1 indeed. but that's pretty huge when it comes to bugs or plants. Quite often 1:1 is too much. Something like a decent bee as an example is already bigger than my sensor at 1:1 and forces me to step back unless I prefer only parts of its body.

That would be one darn big bee, But yeah I can see the advantage of having that much broader range of focus thanks.

 

[J-see]

That would be one darn big bee.

Bees can be pretty huge in comparison to sensors. Maybe sensors are just too small.



I shot this one to show 1:1. This is the full image scaled. The fellow isn't even that huge but he's already absorbing most of the sensor.

1:1 often is only interesting if you're an entomologist or collector but if you want to compose, there are few options when the whole picture is bug.

Btw, you can put a diopter on a macro too. In fact I ordered some to see if I can get them to work with this lens. It's what they call overkill.

 

[Stoshowicz]

Bees can be pretty huge in comparison to sensors. Maybe sensors are just too small.

View attachment 114563

I shot this one to show 1:1. This is the full image scaled. The fellow isn't even that huge but he's already absorbing most of the sensor.

1:1 often is only interesting if you're an entomologist or collector but if you want to compose, there are few options when the whole picture is bug.

Btw, you can put a diopter on a macro too. In fact I ordered some to see if I can get them to work with this lens. It's what they call overkill.

Good demo photo , yep , we're on the same page on the meaning they give for 1:1 , a ten to fifteen mm honey bee fits a crop sensor 23.5mm long , but perhaps a bumble bee overlaps it ( but wouldnt on a 'full size' sensor)

To me, it looks like the sharp depth- from front to back -is maybe one third the length of the bee, and so it measures maybe 3-5 mm... so if you added say a 2 diopter in front of this , and you can ( must) now get closer... does the sharp depth- front to back- still cover the same 3-5 mm of bee? (but show bigger on screen which would give you greater size and resolution without loss of the depth) . or Is the diopter include a degree of magnification which changes the DoF.

 

[J-see]

Good demo photo , yep , we're on the same page on the meaning they give for 1:1 , a ten to fifteen mm honey bee fits a crop sensor 23.5mm long , but perhaps a bumble bee overlaps it ( but wouldnt on a 'full size' sensor)

To me, it looks like the sharp depth- from front to back -is maybe one third the length of the bee, and so it measures maybe 3-5 mm... so if you added say a 2 diopter in front of this , and you can ( must) now get closer... does the sharp depth- front to back- still cover the same 3-5 mm of bee? (but show bigger on screen which would give you greater size and resolution without loss of the depth) . or Is the diopter include a degree of magnification which changes the DoF.

The plane of sharpness is much thinner I fear. This shot is at an angle me slightly higher than the bee. If you look at a close up of the head, you see it's pretty thin.



Normally the closer you get, the less DOF there is. If I'd add a +2 to the lens, I'd end up with 4D which enables me to focus from 50 cm to 25 cm. But since the 25cm is from the bee to my sensor, I'd almost be bashing its head with the glass. I can't say yet how much I'll have to stop the lens down but I'll never have the same DOF with the aperture I use now. Probably I'll only have haze.

Edit: I checked out an online DOF calculator and according that, at magnification 1:1 I should have a DOF of 0.93mm at f/11. 2.7mm at f/32.

 

[Stoshowicz]

Very interesting, so what appeared to me to be sharp and in focus , is actually three times the width of the 'actual' plane of focus.OK.
But the comparison is still a bit off versus what Id like to know- Ill explain,- the main lens 'claims' its getting a 1:1 ratio which depends on the closest distance it can focus.
The closer a lens needs to be to get 1:1 magnification the less 'magnifying' the main lens is really doing.
Depth of field is relative by the amount of 'magnification' that is happening (all else held constant)

So the addition of the diopter glass ,(may..) reduces the magnification required to 'fill' the sensor and therefore might potentially expand the DoF relative to the spread of the target on the sensor.
OR
is the diopter's effect also a magnification effect. ( so it wouldnt help to preserve field depth.)

If I remember correctly ..
Fiddling with my 70-300mm , I took a photo of a dragonfly at 300mm and the thing took up one third of the sensor length.
I zoomed all the way back to 70mm, added the diopter, and got close enough to focus again.
The dragonfly again filled half the sensor width , so I had the same number of pixels per dragonfly... but now... I could zoom in yet father , and get more pixels per dragonfly.
I dont really have an interest in whether I get a true macro by someone elses arbitrary standards, I just want the greatest number of pixels per bug with enough field depth to cover it wingtip to wingtip.

Im trying to figure out if I can get that using diopters added to main lenses sacrificing flexibility in focus distances for greater DOF at whatever aperture I can supply enough light for, at Iso 200.

which is a calculation I dont know how to make. The main lens alone seems to have a sweet spot at 135-200 mm zoom, at an aperture of F11 .

 

[J-see]

From what I read DOF is relative to the magnification so it doesn't matter how close a lens needs to be. When my 200mm is at 1:1, it's DOF is identical to a 60mm at 1:1 as long as they're both at the same aperture.

I can only assume it is identical for a diopter unless additional factors come into play. So when a lens+diopter reaches 1:1 it too should have the exact same DOF. Still, experience tells me I can't do with a diopter at 1:1 what I do now mainly because of the haze. Maybe that's to blame at the close up affecting light.

Pixels are defined by the sensor. If it's 1:1, it'll have the same pixels whether using a macro or diopter. A bee filling up my photo has the same pixel count when shot with my zoom or with anything else. It'll only differ at image quality.

Edit; I'm gonna test it tomorrow. I'll shoot some with the zoom +4 which is around 185mm at 1:1 and I'll use the macro. When doing the same shots at different aperture, it should reveal what exactly differs.

 

[aroy]

Very interesting, so what appeared to me to be sharp and in focus , is actually three times the width of the 'actual' plane of focus.OK.
..........
I dont really have an interest in whether I get a true macro by someone elses arbitrary standards, I just want the greatest number of pixels per bug with enough field depth to cover it wingtip to wingtip.
......

If your bug is smaller than the DX sensor at 1:1, you should try cameras with smaller sensors - micro 4/3 with a 1:1 macro, is what a lot of photographers use for small objects - bugs, alpine flowers, jewellery. Here is one
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm f/2.8 Macro Lens - Photo Review
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 60mm f/2.8 ED Macro - Review / Test Report
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

[J-see]

If your bug is smaller than the DX sensor at 1:1, you should try cameras with smaller sensors - micro 4/3 with a 1:1 macro, is what a lot of photographers use for small objects - bugs, alpine flowers, jewellery.

That would work indeed. A higher crop factor should do the trick.

I'm reading up on the technical aspects of DOV and macro and it sure seems a tiny bit more complicated than "normal".

It's not too complicated it seems. The way I understand it is that if I want to increase my DOV, I can use two methods; lower my magnification or increase my aperture.

The % I lower my magnification in/decreases the DOV by that %²
The % I apply to my aperture in/decreases the DOV by that same %

Aperture is most limited. If I desire to double my DOV@f/16 I am forced to close down to f/32. It quickly demands more than the technical part can deliver.

 

[J-see]

I took some quick shots to compare the zoom vs the macro.

Yes they're done in low light, high ISO and a bad subject but it's identical for both. It shows you need to up the aperture quite some to compensate for quality loss alone. The problem is that to gain quality like this, the zoom will quickly start to deteriorate because of diffraction.








With the micro I was at 50cm subject-cam. With the zoom + diopter at 46cm.

 

[Stoshowicz]

Well that area in focus with the prime , sure looks great. What exactly are you thinking the softening of the image from the 70-300 is due to?

 

[J-see]

Well that area in focus with the prime , sure looks great. What exactly are you thinking the softening of the image from the 70-300 is due to?

I'm not sure but suspect it has to do with the light. Since the filter is like a magnifying glass, it can't but also affect the light that enters. Maybe it's the light in relation to its shape.

 

[Stoshowicz]

I'm not sure but suspect it has to do with the light. Since the filter is like a magnifying glass, it can't but also affect the light that enters. Maybe it's the light in relation to its shape.

Im not sure either , that last pic looks very much like the sort that I got last night using the +2 diopter I suspect that soft-haze is either a result of passing through so many layers of glass ( a percent will bounce off every layer) OR that its excess light bouncing around inside the camera body itself. Running with that idea , led me to using the smaller apertures originally , cleaning up most of that stray light, and giving me the deepest field I can get for my sensor size.
Because that diopter changes the effective aperture a little , I figure that the diffusion issue using smaller than f22 apertures might change. I need to do more experimenting though,, the result at f37 at 200mm +6 diopters really seemed pretty good, though I doubt it'll match the prime.

Tell me though, why is it you want to keep the apertures so big rather than add supplemental light ? You don't want to scare the bugs?

 

[J-see]

Tell me though, why is it you want to keep the apertures so big rather than add supplemental light ? You don't want to scare the bugs?

I wouldn't mind additional light but I intensely dislike flash lights. It just annoys me. It can't keep up with continuous shooting either which I often do. I ordered led lights to see if they can solve the light problem. If I can get it going, I can use it like a ring of light but it'll be constant light which would also solve the continuous issue. I have a rough idea how to get it going but only when putting it into practice I'll know if it works. It shouldn't affect bugs since shadows scare them off, light should do the opposite. To their vision, the lights would phase me out.

But all in all I don't mind shooting with the lens open. I'm of the opinion that instead of the whole image requiring sharpness, only the right parts need to be. When everything is sharp, everything is distracting. When the right parts are sharp, the eye automatically ignores the blurry parts and travels to the ones it can most easily make sense of. Evidently that doesn't work for every subject.

Added there's also the problem of deterioration when closing the lens down. At some point, you're gradually trading DOF for fuzziness. One can wonder if that's worth an additional 0.5mm DOF.

 

[Stoshowicz]

While I don't share your tastes on blurriness , I do understand your approach. The lighting even if non flash can accentuate things if done well though, maybe consider a reflector instead?.
Nah, for me , I want sharp sharp sharp all over the bug even if its a little soft, all the bits and pieces make the creature.. whole ,,
the distracting thing to me is the fall off of sharpness there can be, when not photostacking the whole thing.,, but that is surely an issue of personal tastes,
and frankly I really liked the overall sharpness you got on some of the spider shots. I still have some ironing out of technique with the diopters , so my christmas lens is probably a long one rather than macro.

 

[J-see]

Reflectors would not be that handy. I'm more of a "push the button, let's roll" kinda guy. While I see the logic in preparing a "scene" and that it can benefit on many occasion, it wouldn't work well for me.

For spiders, I usually frequent the same areas until I get to know the players. When I know where they are and what their "attitude" is, I keep circling the same route along them all. The problem with spiders is that most of the time they're just hanging out there and you have to be lucky to catch a moment of activity. By circling them all, I try to increase my luck. If there's activity, it's usually only a couple of seconds before they go into freeze mode again. If I'm wasting time setting all up at one, I might miss the good moments of five others.

That's also why I always have to compromise in what I'll sacrifice in order to gain as a whole. It's almost impossible for me to have full sharpness even if I'd desire.

Photostacking is something that might provide phenomenal shots but for bugs it only works well with necro-macro.

 

[Stoshowicz]

That sounds amusing to watch, but fun to do.
I once spent fifteen minutes trying to chase down some flying darners in a grassy field in front of some folks who couldnt see them.
You're going to document the life cycle of a lynx spider?

Everyone has their own tastes, but, when you yourself look at the macro ..or non macro shots of birds and bugs , what is it that you think most important in shaping your opinion as to whether you 'like it' or dont.

 

[J-see]

Everyone has their own tastes, but, when you yourself look at the macro ..or non macro shots of birds and bugs , what is it that you think most important in shaping your opinion as to whether you 'like it' or dont.

It entirely depends what I like in other's images. I can appreciate the technical quality/difficulty or the beauty of the subject. I however appreciate most when I don't get the impression I'm watching a BBC documentary.

I do my best to avoid that myself. Most shots represent reality as if you are there. That's done enough. I instead prefer to create something you'll never see.

Instead of a reality show, I do soap opera.