Macro with a long lens

I couldn't get near enough with the 60mm macro so I tried a different tack.
Caper White butterfly - taken hand held at about four metres with the 300mm F4 + MC-14
1/320Sec, F11, ISO 200
http://i68.tinypic.com/154zj1w.jpg

It still looks sharp if you want to pixel peep. (4MB file)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...DJaS0J6TmN1UGM

Love that lens.

That's a cracker Richard.

Long lens macro has become my favorite tactic; I mostly shoot birds, but will frequently spot an insect or flower that begs attention. Beats having to switch lenses.

Richard, nice shot, detail and sharp.

Nice shot, color harmony

You nailed it with that long lens. Not easy to do well.

Dave

Very nice image Richard :)

Excellent image Richard

Great shot

I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio. somehow I think it's less challenging with a long focal length but does it really matter if you get the shot. Nice capture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio. <>

---

It might not be 1:1 though, John.

The posted image appears to be a 1400x1400px crop from a 4608x3456px micro four-thirds (17.3mm x 13mm sensor) camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

It might not be 1:1 though, John.

The posted image appears to be a 1400x1400px crop from a 4608x3456px micro four-thirds (17.3mm x 13mm sensor) camera.

---

Hi Ted, the posted image is a 1440 X1440 resize of the image in the link. The image in the link is a square (2670 X2670) crop of the RAW 4:3 image (4608 X 3450) I added the link for the pixel peepers who didn't mind a 4MB file. I just love that lens and the opportunities it opens up for hand-held photography in often challenging environments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

I couldn't get near enough with the 60mm macro so I tried a different tack.
Caper White butterfly - taken hand held at about four metres with the 300mm F4 + MC-14
1/320Sec, F11, ISO 200
http://i68.tinypic.com/154zj1w.jpg

It still looks sharp if you want to pixel peep. (4MB file)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...DJaS0J6TmN1UGM

Love that lens.

---

That's as good a butterfly shot as I've got with my Tamron 90. Well done. (and better than most of mine)

Great shot. It is a great lens too. I've thought long and hard about buying it but having used the 75-300mm a lot I feel it will be too long too often so can't make my mind up. Also not long enough at times but the converter would help with that.

I suspect pixel peeper would get a bit of a surprise if they viewed the results from a number of Olympus's lenses. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they can match or exceed the usual crop factors. Noise - well my 80D seems to be noisier than either my EM-1 or EM-5. I didn't use my D7000 much but would be inclined to say the same about that. The main problem for me is the 60mm macro. I just wish it was much longer for a greater working distances.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Great shot. It is a great lens too. I've thought long and hard about buying it but having used the 75-300mm a lot I feel it will be too long too often so can't make my mind up. Also not long enough at times but the converter would help with that.

I suspect pixel peeper would get a bit of a surprise if they viewed the results from a number of Olympus's lenses. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they can match or exceed the usual crop factors. Noise - well my 80D seems to be noisier than either my EM-1 or EM-5. I didn't use my D7000 much but would be inclined to say the same about that. The main problem for me is the 60mm macro. I just wish it was much longer for a greater working distances.

John
-

---

Thanks John, I thought long and hard before buying the 300mm F4 after all it cost seven times what I paid for my 75-300mm II and I've got a lot of good shots with that lens. The thing that makes it worth the money is the IS as well as the sharpness. I have never needed to use a tripod or monopod while shooting with it. As for 'too long' I am still finding the need to crop images far more often than I complain that I can't frame the subject. I haven't yet frightened off a bird by walking three paces backwards to frame it. :D I just wish I was more dexterous in swapping the MC-14 in and out.

Dicky.

I've wondered about the Panasonic 100-400mm but my favourite test site really slates it at the long end and they had the cheek to put Leica on it. I've wondered if they tested a lemon but really bad lenses are rare in that respect.

For macro I have mostly used the 75-300mm with an elderly Sigma achromatic close up lens on it. It gets a bit weak at 300mm but even then can cope with a fair bit of detail on say a bee. The close up lens has the correct filter size. I also tried a modern one bought new - never again. It had canon on it but I've since found that they apparently don't make them. The Sigma ones crop up on ebay now and again. Most of the problems I have had are down to me plus the flash set up and I did hope to sort that out more this year but insect life were I have been hasn't been very good. I'm also trying the canon 80d and a sigma 150mm but initial impression is much more difficult to use hand held and weighs a fair bit more. Results better - if I had the dof correct on the m 4/3 I don't think so but time will tell.

:D With the zoom I have the problem of having to take the close up lens off at times - a right pain plus I have attached the flash to a lens hood I use on it.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

Hi Ted, the posted image is a 1440 X1440 resize of the image in the link. The image in the link is a square (2670 X2670) crop of the RAW 4:3 image (4608 X 3450) I added the link for the pixel peepers who didn't mind a 4MB file. I just love that lens and the opportunities it opens up for hand-held photography in often challenging environments.

---

Hello Richard,

Thanks for the clarification!

So I'm estimating that the image at the sensor was about 5mm tall, probably a lot smaller than the actual butterfly.

John was suggesting 1:1 which is why I asked.

Perhaps the word "Macro" in the thread title was taken too literally?

It would need to be a very small butterfly to fit 1:1 on a 4/3 sensor (18 x 13mm in 'whole' numbers).

It doesn't really matter if they are not 1:1 people. The end result is what counts. The 60mm macro will do real 1:1 if needed.

There are a lot of macro shots in one of my flickr albums using the zoom and close up lens on the E-M1. They are all hefty crops. One aspect I haven't got right. I'm a good microscope user so never use more mag than needed. I do the same with this gear. When I can see the detail in the viewfinder I take the shot. I need to go a bit more past that. The other problem is no diffuser on the flash.

There are also some spider shots taken with a manual pentax macro lens on a pen in another - tough. I had to focus with a veiwfinder magniification of about 10 so couldn't even be sure that I had the things framed. That particular macro lens is very sharp for an old one.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

It doesn't really matter if they are not 1:1 people. <>

---

Sorry, us people probably misunderstood "I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio." (my bold). ;)

An excellent butterfly image :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Sorry, us people probably misunderstood "I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio." (my bold). ;)

---

That's how I see it Ted or even larger than life size. Otherwise there are fair few insects that would need medium format for 1:1. I posted as shot of a butterfly that wouldn't fit on FF camera at 1:1. It most certainly wouldn't on the canon crop I used.

On a microscope I use a 1/2" sensor, large compared with more recent ones. That has a diagonal of about 8mm. I don't do it as insects have to be killed but it can produce massive images at enormous magnifications. The same can be done on dslr's too.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

That's how I see it Ted or even larger than life size. Otherwise there are fair few insects that would need medium format for 1:1. I posted as shot of a butterfly that wouldn't fit on FF camera at 1:1. It most certainly wouldn't on the canon crop I used.

On a microscope I use a 1/2" sensor, large compared with more recent ones. That has a diagonal of about 8mm. I don't do it as insects have to be killed but it can produce massive images at enormous magnifications. The same can be done on dslr's too.

John
-

---

By George, I think I've got it. :)

Are you using the rigorous definition of "macro", i.e. 1:1 or bigger, anything else is just "close-up"?

Pass Ted. It's a subject I have seen crop up many times even to the extent that it's not macro 'cause it didn't use a macro lens. Micro is higher mags than 1:1 according to some. Another one but where is the image viewed.

All I would say is that few people are interested in the image on the sensor so who cares. Many macro shots finish up with much higher than 1:1 magnification so is that microphotography ? I've used a close up lens. Is that close up photography? Some do microphotography with several close up lenses attached. Some stick certain microscope opjectives on the end of 200mm telephoto's. Some use them directly.

I feel it's an area best left for people who feel like being pedantic as it has to be a rather grey area in practice.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Sorry, us people probably misunderstood "I suppose how it's done doesn't matter as long as you get the 1:1 reproduction ratio." (my bold).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

That's how I see it Ted, or even larger than life size.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Are you using the rigorous definition of "macro", i.e. 1:1 or bigger, anything else is just "close-up"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Pass Ted.

---

An interesting sequence . . I fold ;)

Don't know why Ted. I do know what I think. Others may thinks something else so in that respect I pass. I had already expressed my view on the subject so why ask ?

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

I've wondered about the Panasonic 100-400mm but my favourite test site really slates it at the long end and they had the cheek to put Leica on it. I've wondered if they tested a lemon but really bad lenses are rare in that respect.
-

---

The early samples from the 100-400 were very disappointing, I think the reviewers had the lens for only a short time and conditions/weather were very poor for getting a fair result. Since then I've seen a lot of very sharp images at the long end.

Quote:

---

For macro I have mostly used the 75-300mm with an elderly Sigma achromatic close up lens on it. It gets a bit weak at 300mm but even then can cope with a fair bit of detail on say a bee. The close up lens has the correct filter size. I also tried a modern one bought new - never again. It had canon on it but I've since found that they apparently don't make them. The Sigma ones crop up on ebay now and again. Most of the problems I have had are down to me plus the flash set up and I did hope to sort that out more this year but insect life were I have been hasn't been very good. I'm also trying the canon 80d and a sigma 150mm but initial impression is much more difficult to use hand held and weighs a fair bit more. Results better - if I had the dof correct on the m 4/3 I don't think so but time will tell.
-

---

I tried a Canon 250D on the 75-300mm but it had a DOF of one Angstrom, so I gave the 250D to my nephew together with the Fuji HS50 that the E-M1 replaced. The 250D transformed macro on the HS50.
http://i65.tinypic.com/2v8lmaf.jpg

Dicky.

I am probably being a bit unfair on the Panasonic lens. At 300mm it is better than the Olympus 75-300mm. The centre resolution as not bad at 400mm but not good either. Edge a bit of a disaster. The centre can be matched by some full frame 100-400mm. IS mediocre too, about 2.5 stops as they test it. The review on the lens has received some criticism - didn't do it properly mostly from none English speaking European countries. People in that area are more likely to be interested in technical reviews. The review sites answer to that is well look at our results on the Olympus 300mm F4. The resolution is so high on that one that any testing method problems would show up. One thing that doesn't seem to have happened is Panasonic lending them another lens.

There are a couple of bird shots here with it. Full frame type and then at the side of a frame

https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/T...8274164710.jpg

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/T...0944874126.jpg

These give some idea of the material available to work with. It's about what I would expect from the tests. ;) I have always looked at this type before buying a lens and they can give people a fair idea of what the results will look like.

On macro with the set up I mentioned this isn't far off a direct crop from a full sized image.

[IMG]https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3855/1...d79f2eff_o.jpgP7190213 by John, on Flickr[/IMG]

:( I really should have got in closer on that one. For some reason I didn't try to get eye detail visible. That may be due to me not wanting to set it at over 200mm due to the size of the insect and bushes being in the way, I have found that results can drop off above 200mm and just as a for instance that fits in with resolution tests on the lens.

John
-