|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a fast focusing macro, I use mine in manual usually but I have the tricks that come with mirrorless cameras like focus peaking and magnified view either on the screen or through the viewfinder.
I've never used a tc but I'd think it might work better with that lens. When I've tried tubes on telephoto lenses they don't seem to have much affect, I don't know whether you'd use the actual or equivalent focal lengths to compare or how to calculate these things but on my zoom at 100mm(200mm equiv) the difference is negligible with 25mm tubes. If I put them on my wide zoom at infinity focus it won't quite focus on something sitting on the front element
I'd wanted the laowa 7.5mm f2 for ages, when I finally got round to ordering it it took a lot of will power not to add the 25 
The probe lens looks interesting too but above my price ceiling for a toy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
Just tried a 1.4 - no AF at all, not even trying 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2358
Shheeeeeet what have you done!
That 25mm looks tasty!
Shame I need all my (non-existent) money for food.
One thing I didn't consider with my existing rig, and I don't know why, is a TC.
It's free experiment anyway, but I expect AF will suffer terribly.
The only real downside of that 180 is the AF speed.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2357
I don't know how lens dependant it is, but after putting tubes on I have to move the tripod back by around the same distance as the tubes, the raynox does cut the working distance at full magnification. Using both I have a working distance of about 25mm but my lens is wider than yours at 120mm 35mm equivalent.
The bigger problem is the loss of light coupled with the shallower dof, by the time you adjust the aperture you've probably lost 4 stops so flash or stacking become critical.
If I had this time on my hands without the financial uncertainty I'd take a punt on a laowa 25mm macro lens, they look very interesting! 5-1macro on a 2x crop sensor 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2356
I'm mostly at 3200 ISO, and use Neat Image for de-noising, also a small bit of de-noising at the RAW stage.
That last little spider is a frustratingly large crop but getting closer by adding tubes, I've just realised, is going to bring a whole new problem, them staying put while the lens gets even closer!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2355
It looks a serious lens mate, I wouldn't want to put anything on it that would impair the quality either.
I wouldn't make any judgments on sharpness from those pics for a few reasons,a big one being I could gobo the flashes with the tubes but couldn't completely with the adaptor. I feel from looking at a lot of images that the adaptor isn't any worse than tubes but without losing all that light.your kit should give more useable iso range too, for stuff like this I'd be worried using 800 and expecting to have to use a decent noise reducer. I might try them both on my 75mm f1. 8 which is up there with the sharpest lenses for mft and find something worth doing hi res with.
In fairness a crop from a high res file will often be as good or better than a standard image with an adaptor. Some of the tech in these things astounds me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2354
Didn't get long in the garden myself, clouded over quick and then rain.
That adaptor's quite impressive but I think to be honest the macro lens with tube has better quality, although you said you're losing light that way.
I'm going to a try a tube first anyway as it's cheaper, and my 180 prime is a bit of a belter.
Last night's refrigerated Zebra Jumper got his own back this morning - little bathtub was all over the place straight away - not a single usable frame!
Caught a couple more with slightly better results, but the best was the only Fleecy Jumper I found.
Half the length of an ant!
Sat nicely for 3 stacks worth - composite image below 
All went back on the brickwork unharmed afterwards 
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2353
Having to give the garden a wide berth today, kid next door coughing something chronic!
So I had a play with some flash gels. Won't be any good to compare sharpness but it does show a difference in magnification and exposure
Today's subject
Here it is with my macro lens at mfd, 1:1 magnification. This will already be closer than you get just through the smaller sensor
But we can get closer still, using 26mm of extension tubes.
Note all images are at f8, flash power and distance doesn't change either
Another option are the excellent raynox adaptors, not to be compared to those cheap diopter, this is using the raynox 250, there are more or less powerful models
We can also use both
... 
That first circle is less than a mm
I think I'm gonna order the raynox 150, I think stacking both will give me better results than using tubes. They don't seem to have the same light penalty, and will turn any of my lenses into macros, where the tubes only really work with standard to wide primes
I've got dozens of DIY modifiers for macro light diffusion, I'm going to have to knock up some mini snoots, I wanted more contrast than this
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2352
That would be great Paul, I did do a few but got really fed up with ps when trying to stack some astro images, I don't think I've used it in a year, light room does most of what I want.
I haven't noticed it before but my tubes seem to be robbing me of a lot of contrast and some sharpness, not sure if it's a light leak or some internal reflections but it hasn't always done that.
Tubes are a great cheap way to get closer, I'm finding the raynox adaptor previously mentioned costs a lot less in terms of light, contrast and sharpness, I think they're about £60
I've set the camera up for star trails now but I'll do a comparison tomorrw
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2351
Photoshop is what I'm using, happy to do a quick guide via PM if it helps?
Going to have to get an extension tube to get closer.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2350
Seeing the outline of my head in the eye highlight I want to try it with a flash fired on my face
My camera does it well but it only takes a tiny movement and it will fail, its been like a yoga workout today getting into positions where I can hold it steady. I have a few worth editing from today, I might see whether the photos hop focus stack is easier than last time I tried.
Also had a go with the high res mode, a few frames were slightly missing focus but the frames may stack, would be great if they do, I'm always amazed at the detail when high res works
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2349
Found one! Couldn't catch it, it was deep in the Rosemary so shot it in situ.
After a little think I'd decided to go back to the 1D4 because I wasn't seeing any noticeable improvement in quality with the 5D3 and it only shoots 6fps.
1D4 does 10 fps and of course a little more reach which is always welcome.
Just took this - a 22 shot, and hand-held, focus stack.
Shocked at how well it's come out with such an unscientific way of shooting. 
Same as yours really, for an in-camera algorithm that's pretty stonking.
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2348
I'm glad to finally know what the bee fly is called, I get loads in my garden and never knew whether they sting
I wasn't looking for one but this managed to meet a sticky end under my drink! (click)
Stacked in camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2347
Can't find one now!
Today's bests...
(Click for bigger)
Wolf Spider - stack of 5
Bee Fly
Sand Wasp (I think) covered in pollen
Shield Bug (stack of 9)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2346
Jumpers look so cute up close
The stacking can do better than I've shown here, I had it set a bit too narrow by the look of them. It's also jpeg only but with the single raw frames if you want to go to the next level.
I did mean to do some composite star trails last night but a couple of ciders in the sunshine went right to my head
|
|
NON Carp stuff