Small White and a ?

[billtils]

I'm getting to be quite enthusiastic about the 300mm PF + TC1.4 II as a close-up lens, as long as the subjects aren't too small. Here's one from today of a small white on the lavender, that I was able to shoot much more comfortably than creeping up close with the 90mm macro lens.




I'm not sure how far I can push it, but here's something smaller, namely what I think is a wasp but my brother-in-law (in whose garden I photographed it) says is a honey bee. If it is indeed a wasp, that's another plus for the extra distance of the 300 combo .





C&C on the images, the wasp/bee question, and on the idea of using what was bought as a birding lens to take insect pics are of course welcome.

[FootLoose]

Nice images, Bill. I have found that when I shoot flora I tend to get better results with my 70-300mm lens because shooting from a further subject distance produces better depth of field. But the only criteria that matters is whether you are happy with the results.

[DanK]

Nice shots. I’ve just started exploring with my 200-400 for such purposes. This will inspire me to try more.

That is definitely not a honey bee. While there are a few bee species that look somewhat wasp- like, that sure looks like a wasp to me. It looks quite similar to one of the North American yellow jacket wasps, but the markings are a bit different. If it is a yellow jacket, stay back; they are a relatively aggressive wasp. Also, if it is near its nest and you happen to step on the entrance to the nest, they will often swarm. Here they are a nuisance primarily in late summer, when they are desperate for more food and are attracted by human food, particularly sweet things like fruit and juices.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JBW]

Hi Bill, I'm becoming a hard core 90mm macro shooter. But, and it is a big but lately i have been looking over my shooting history. Surprise, surprise the Fujifilm S4200 allowed me to take some impressive shots, so did the 158 with the 18-55 zoom.

As for using a lens for other than the intended purpose... I got some nice astrophotography out of my 90.

If you're happy with what you're getting go for it. I'm willing to bet you can push both the lens and your skills a lot further.

[Shadowman]

Nice set.

[billtils]

Nice shots. I’ve just started exploring with my 200-400 for such purposes. This will inspire me to try more.

That is definitely not a honey bee.

Thanks Dan.

I was pretty confident it was not a honey bee, but the body is fatter than that of the typical wasp we get around here, so your feedback is very welcome.

Have fun with the 200-400!

[Geoff F]

You also need a face on view of wasps to manage a full identification. Looking directly from the front, or slightly to the side, can produce some interesting wasp photos; although it can be tricky to achieve those angles.

I started insect macro photography with a 70-300 lens plus a 25 mm extension tube. Now I use a Sigma 180 macro lens often with a 1.4x converter. Mostly on a tripod, although I sometimes shoot hand held for those difficult to reach butterfly angles. Always manual focus.

[Dave A]

Really nice sharp images.....well done.

[DanK]

Just for comparison, here is a honeybee:



Note that it is much fuzzier; it's more orange than yellow; and the back legs in particular are very different (the better to collect pollen). Wasps get their protein from other insects, not from pollen. You have to get close to see it, but honeybees--which aren't native to the US--are unlike any of our native bee species in that they have hairs coming out of their compound eyes, rather than just around them. AFAIK, no wasps do.

[billtils]

Just for comparison, here is a honeybee:



Note that it is much fuzzier; it's more orange than yellow; and the back legs in particular are very different (the better to collect pollen). Wasps get their protein from other insects, not from pollen. You have to get close to see it, but honeybees--which aren't native to the US--are unlike any of our native bee species in that they have hairs coming out of their compound eyes, rather than just around them. AFAIK, no wasps do.

Dan, thanks for posting this. I was comfortable that the insect was a wasp and not a bee, but was slightly put off by brother-in-law's confident assertion. Things were complicated somewhat by what I have in my catalogue - lots and lots of bumble bees but not a single honey bee. It seems that the distinguishing characteristics are that bees are hairy with fat hind legs and wasps are shiny with flat profile antennae.

[skitterbug]

Hi Bill - I've been using the 100-400 lens for anything and everything and am fairly happy with the results that I have. It seems easier for me to get close-up without disturbing the subject as much if I had to move in. Both of these photos look good and sharp to me. They show lots of detail too. Lately, my motto is "whatever works!" <lol>