Another lens or compact camera?

Hey guys, know i haven't been on in a long time. Been busy with life. Anyways, I have a question about macro lenses. I have a sigma 105 mm lens, it's an amazing lens. But, the depth of field is exceedingly shallow. Like, for instance, If i take a picture of a snail then the lens focuses on either the shell, it's eyes or something in the foreground. I want a lens that focuses on the snail & it's eyes. I primarily do macro photography. I am not sure if I need another lens or if i should just get a nice compact camera to do some of my photography with? If so which camera or lens? I have several illnesses unfortunately & holding my big camera still is pretty tough. Any advice appreciated, thanks so much!

LenspirationalPhotography said:

Hey guys, know i haven't been on in a long time. Been busy with life. Anyways, I have a question about macro lenses. I have a sigma 105 mm lens, it's an amazing lens. But, the depth of field is exceedingly shallow. Like, for instance, If i take a picture of a snail then the lens focuses on either the shell, it's eyes or something in the foreground. I want a lens that focuses on the snail & it's eyes. I primarily do macro photography. I am not sure if I need another lens or if i should just get a nice compact camera to do some of my photography with? If so which camera or lens? I have several illnesses unfortunately & holding my big camera still is pretty tough. Any advice appreciated, thanks so much!

Click to expand...

From your description this is a simple depth of field issue.

Macro Camera Lenses via Cambridge in Color

How can I fix it? My camera is hard for me to keep steady so thats an issue too. so I'm really thinking about getting a compact one too.

LenspirationalPhotography said:

How can I fix it? My camera is hard for me to keep steady so thats an issue too. so I'm really thinking about getting a compact one too.

Click to expand...

Well it's not something that needs fixing, per se... I edited my previous post with a link that should help.

Horoscope Fish said:

Well it's not something that needs fixing, per se... I edited my previous post with a link that should help.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Would it be a good idea for me to get a p&s because of my illnesses?

To "fix" this, get a tripod and shoot from the tripod, using the optimal aperture for your setup. (The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field, but watch out for aberrations caused by using small apertures.) To help even more, use a flash when you can, from off camera and also placed close to the subject. To "fix" it even more, when you can, shift the focus to create a series of images with different parts of the subject in focus. Afterwards, use a focus-stacking algorithm to stack the images to generate an image with greater, albeit artificial, depth of field.

I think you can get what you want to with your current lens. You just need to learn a few tricks to utilize it to its fullest capabilities.

WM

Experiment with backing up a bit and cropping the final image. This will give you more depth of field. If your shot is sharp, you can crop quite a bit.
For handheld macro, I use single point continuous focus. I use the back button for focus, but that is optional. Camera set to manual shooting mode. Iso 100. Typically 1/250 shutter, f14 or higher, often over f20. Shutter and aperture set manually. I also use onboard flash or sometimes a larger flash. I will up the iso if I have to back too far away to get the subject all in focus. At those high f stops, the flash doesn't carry very far. The flash will help you catch a sharp handheld image and allow good depth of field from the high aperture. You will need to practice a bit with holding that single focus point on subject while releasing the shutter. Also note your final image will have more depth of field than what you see in the viewfinder with these settings.

Google "focus stacking"... Your lens is fine. Basically, you use a tripod to manually focus and take multiple images... There are also focus rails to help with this... there is software that combines the images, retaining the in-focus portions... Think of it as Bracketing but instead of adjusting different exposures, you're adjusting different focus points within the image...

If you want more dof then a smaller sensor as in a compact/bridge camera will provide this.
I owned the sony rx10 ( 1 inch sensor ) for a while and took a number f close ups of butterflies and found the dof was noticeably deeper than that of my aps-c gear.

captain birdseye said:

If you want more dof then a smaller sensor as in a compact/bridge camera will provide this.
I owned the sony rx10 ( 1 inch sensor ) for a while and took a number f close ups of butterflies and found the dof was noticeably deeper than that of my aps-c gear.

Click to expand...

Any recommendations?? I have no experience in focus stacking or image stacking unfortunately.

nickt said:

Experiment with backing up a bit and cropping the final image. This will give you more depth of field. If your shot is sharp, you can crop quite a bit.
For handheld macro, I use single point continuous focus. I use the back button for focus, but that is optional. Camera set to manual shooting mode. Iso 100. Typically 1/250 shutter, f14 or higher, often over f20. Shutter and aperture set manually. I also use onboard flash or sometimes a larger flash. I will up the iso if I have to back too far away to get the subject all in focus. At those high f stops, the flash doesn't carry very far. The flash will help you catch a sharp handheld image and allow good depth of field from the high aperture. You will need to practice a bit with holding that single focus point on subject while releasing the shutter. Also note your final image will have more depth of field than what you see in the viewfinder with these settings.

Click to expand...

Thsnks! I've actually done this before & it works quite well. Only problem is I want to focus on teeny tiny things like weevils & other insects & obviously I want to get as close as I can& as much detail. This works well for birds, I've gotten numerous pics of hawks with the 105 mm lens.

LenspirationalPhotography said:

Thsnks! I've actually done this before & it works quite well. Only problem is I want to focus on teeny tiny things like weevils & other insects & obviously I want to get as close as I can& as much detail. This works well for birds, I've gotten numerous pics of hawks with the 105 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Borrow someone's 300mm f/4.5 and partner it with extension tubes. At f/8 or a little lower aperture, you will like those photos. Another option is a dirt cheap 28-85(60 bucks on ebay) at f/8 or lower using the macro feature.

LenspirationalPhotography said:

Thsnks! I've actually done this before & it works quite well. Only problem is I want to focus on teeny tiny things like weevils & other insects & obviously I want to get as close as I can& as much detail. This works well for birds, I've gotten numerous pics of hawks with the 105 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Not my best, but I took these two this morning real quick, handheld with autofocus and flash. They were about the size of the center focus point in the viewfinder. The lady bug was tricky, too shiny. I find it a lot like target shooting, I have to relax and recognize my wobble and release at the right time. Or since I use back button focus, I can let go of the button and focusing stops then I just have to deal with my camera movement and release when it looks focused. Scott that posted above has some good macro threads. He's made some homemade diffusers to help make the flash less harsh.

What am I doing wrong though? Beautiful photos! I struggle with keeping my camera still even with a tripod. My illnesses make my hands not as steady as they should be & I find it easier to get macro shots with my smartphone than camera because I just can't hold that amount of weight steady. Makes me upset &- frustrated.

LenspirationalPhotography said:

What am I doing wrong though? Beautiful photos! I struggle with keeping my camera still even with a tripod. My illnesses make my hands not as steady as they should be & I find it easier to get macro shots with my smartphone than camera because I just can't hold that amount of weight steady. Makes me upset &- frustrated.

Click to expand...

You might try a remote trigger with your tripod.

You could also set the self timer to take the photo and you would not be touching the camera at all.

LenspirationalPhotography said:

What am I doing wrong though? Beautiful photos! I struggle with keeping my camera still even with a tripod. My illnesses make my hands not as steady as they should be & I find it easier to get macro shots with my smartphone than camera because I just can't hold that amount of weight steady. Makes me upset &- frustrated.

Click to expand...

The flash helps a lot. Continuous focus, single point helps. I can wobble all I want as long as I release on target, the flash will freeze it. At 1/320 and f22 I used here, the flash is pretty much the only exposure, so no camera shake. The depth of field at f22 and a little extra distance gives me enough leeway to be off on focus a bit.

Look into back button focus. Plenty of threads here. It took a long time for me to get used to it, but I love it now.

Even if you go with the tripod and use the remote or timer as the others suggested, try some flash. There is always some kind of breeze that could blur your shot. How about a monopod?

I have the Sigma 105. I bought it to replace my Tamron 60mm macro, but I ended up keeping both. The Tamron is smaller and lighter and just as sharp for me. In some situations I appreciate the distance the 105 gives me, but sometimes it is too much. Say if there is a bug on the fence rail and I am looking down on it, I can't get far enough away with the 105, I need a stool. The 60mm works better when I want to be closer. At minimum 1:1 focus distance, there's only a couple inches difference between the 105 and the 60, but at 2 feet or so the 105mm shows its greater magnification.

Here is the original of the fly shot. If you look at the background, you can see I missed the focus a bit, but close enough.

Well, a lot of macro shooters dont use AF, or even manual focus.
They simply set the lens at minimum focus distance ( or where they want it to be ) and move the camera back and forth.
f22 is bit too small an aperture though as it will likely give a lot of diffraction and will require a lot of light to give a good shutter speed.
I rarely go smaller than f10, try and focus on the eye of the subject if you can for best effect.

Ideally use the macro speedlites, on a tripod with a remote trigger. The lights will allow even lighting and a f8 or smaller f-stop. I can't recommend the macro close-up speed lights too much.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tripods, remote triggers, setting up speed lights, focus stacking........Sounds like everyone is shooting dead bugs or something.:indecisiveness:
My subjects like to jump, fly and crawl real fast. I'm not killing anything just to get a shot. Not even bugs.