Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:19:24 +0530 (IST), Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: It is great. Have you tried some bugs/bees having dimension less than 24mm by 36mm? Yes, I also did bees and flies, usualy sitting on flowers, gathering food ... Butterflies, in general, are quite big but they are alien sensitive. It is good to here that a macro lens with a minimum focussing distance of 1 feet can take shots of butterfly but you don't need to go that close to the subject unless and until it smaller than you negetive frame, isn't it? That is right, I usualy calculate more with magnification factor more than with focusing distance anyway. Makes it easier to compare lenses too. The focusing distance is measured from subject to the filmplane, what you really want to know for macro is the distance from the front-lens to the subject, and that depends on the focal length of the lens but also the build of it. BTW: One advantage of the 100mm macro lenses is that they are a bit closer, allowing better coverage by a ring-light (flash). I sometimes find that the 200mm macro is too far away to use the AF-140C flash wich has a rather low guidenumber. Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Hi Patrick! It seems to me that you quite lot of experience with Macrophotography of insects (I have not yet started. Ahhh! that close up kit; I want to kick it off) and I think that it would be helpful in the near future when I you can see me chasing the insects with the macro lens on my camera. Thanks for sharing your wonderful experience especially with dragon flies and jumping spiders. With kind regards, Ayash Kanto. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Patrick White wrote: I've done 1:1 shots of dragonflies using a 100mm on extension. Much easier to use the 200mm though, but even then, you need to stalk them a bit. 1:1 shots of ladybugs are also pretty easy unless they are wandering around looking for food (they are fast-crawling insects). 7:1's of non-flying aphids are even easier (pluck the leaf and take 'em into the studio :-) 11.4 inches will be pleanty far enough provided you stay with the easier insects at first. However, try them all. You'll soon learn which ones you're good at stalking and which you need to get better before doing. I think my first 1:1 macro shot was of a housefly -- it was chilly, the sun was in the right direction and I'd had lots of practice stalking them from when I used to flick them with my fingers as a kid). Personally, I've found the hardest insects to get pictures of are jumping spiders and hoverflies (still haven't managed either). Hoverflies are just skittish beasts, but last summer I concluded that the working distance of a 200mm should be just workable for them (reasonable percentage of successful stalkings). Jumping spiders, on the other hand, are absolutely impossible for me. They have stunning vision for an insect. They get scared and run away when I get within about 3 ft (1m) of them and get scared and move way sooner than that. Hoverflies are downright easy in comparison. Oh, and dragonflies.. just require some stalking and spending some time finding their favorite lookout point. The ones with lookouts farthest from the water seem to be the easiest to shoot too (probably more tired or something). hope that helps, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Rodger Whitlock wrote: If you are seriously interested, I direct you to the following Kodak publications: N12A: Close-Up Photography (essentially up to 3x lifesize) N12B: Photomacrography (3x to 50x lifesize) N16: combined hardback edition of N12A N12B These were first published around 1969; I do not know if they are still in print, but may be worth pursuing. I was lucky enough to find a second hand copy of N16. Hi! Glad to recieve your reply and I will try to get those books that you have referenced. Many thanks for that. After recieving so many feedbacks about various aspects of macrophotography, I think my insight towards this subject is getting clearer. With kind regards, Ayash Kanto. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
So, there are ways out to problem like this, I mean; how to photograph dragonflies. Only experienced people can tell us solutions like this. Regards, Ayash Kanto. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, John Mustarde wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:15:26 -0800, you wrote: Oh, and dragonflies.. just require some stalking and spending some time finding their favorite lookout point. The ones with lookouts farthest from the water seem to be the easiest to shoot too (probably more tired or something). Dragonflies love flash. It's a bright light source that could possibly attract prey. Just fire the flash (use the test button) in the general vicinity of a dragonfly on its perch. It will either stay in position and motionless for several minutes, or move away then come back near the flash source fairly quickly. Most everything anyone needs to know about macro photography in the field is covered in Shaw's book called, I think, Closeups in Nature. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Hi Dan! I shall be photographing mostly insects whose dimensions are less than 24mm by 36mm, therefore a 1:1 macro lens is essential for that. I have to choose which focal length. Shall I go for (90/100/105mm) or (180/200mm). Both have some advantages and disadvantages. Probably the degree of alien sensitivity of the insects will give me the idea what working distance shall I choose and that will tell me which focal length to choose. Regards, Ayash Kanto. On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dan Scott wrote: Hi Ayash, I have the FA 100/2.8 macro, which is 1:1, but I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of my shots with it (mostly flowers and occassionally bugs) 1:2 would have been plenty. As you say, it depends on what you want to use the lens for. Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jan van Wijk wrote: BTW: One advantage of the 100mm macro lenses is that they are a bit closer, allowing better coverage by a ring-light (flash). I sometimes find that the 200mm macro is too far away to use the AF-140C flash wich has a rather low guidenumber. Regards, JvW Therefore, 200mm Macro lens also have limitations as you pointed it out. I was not aware of this aspect of using 200 mm Macro lens. Thanks. Regards, Ayash Kanto. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, petit miam wrote: --- Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many thanks for your comments and views. I should keep my close-up filters aside in the corner of my darkroom and allow the dust to settle on it. N!! Why not? I want to know if you please. My COZO close-up filters are my favourite accessory. I picked them up for a bargain NZ$25. Every time I take my camera out I use them. I even keep them attached to my camera. I photographed nearly every wild-flower in Western Australia using them (on a holiday there). And I got some amazing photos with them. Also I got highly commended in a NZ-wide photo competition run by Agfa about 6yrs ago. I entered a photo taken with guess-what my close-up lenses. I have to admit I have never tried a macro lens, but I know that nothing will ever make me give up my close-up lenses. I think some of my best photos have been taken with them. Jody (whose silent scream was probably heard in China) What is the thing about China why your silent scream would ever reach there? I am inquisitive now if you don't mind. I was just trying to think of somewhere a very long way away. As a child, we were told that if we dug a hole through the earth we would end up in China. Now that I am grown up, I have since found out it is Spain, but there is still this idea of China being so far away. Jody. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Please explain the term alien-sensitive. I just need to know one thing. Have you ever used that lens in photographing alien sensitive insects, like butterflies and bees? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, petit miam wrote: Please explain the term alien-sensitive. Sensitive to the presence of alien things (alien being anything that's not part of its normal environment or day-to-day experiences). In this case, it refers to people. chris I just need to know one thing. Have you ever used that lens in photographing alien sensitive insects, like butterflies and bees? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
- Original Message - From: petit miam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 26, 2001 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! Please explain the term alien-sensitive. Thats when, like, a guy with a weird forehead (or a guy with four weird heads) taps you on the shoulder, and you scream and run away. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Ayash, I have a A100/2.8 Macro which is just great. It goes 1:1, but I rarely use it that way. I took a butterfly at 1:1 last week. It looks like a monster!...bug eyes hairy feet. More important, you should think about your working distance. A 50mm Macro works very close to the subject...like postage stamps. A 100mm Macro is more comfortable for me...usually 6-15 inches away. I would like to own a 200mm Macro to get even farther away. Visit Mark Cassino's home page and see his photo galleries. http://www.markcassino.com The macro photos of flowers and insects are outstanding. (The bird photos aren't too bad either!) Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many thanks for your comments and views. I should keep my close-up filters aside in the corner of my darkroom and allow the dust to settle on it. It is time for the macro lens to come in action, but of what macro magnification, 1:1 or 1:2? I have to figure it out. It depends on the kind of macro work the photographer is interested in. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Hi. as someone who shoots a lot of macro stuff, I'd seriously recommend the Tamron 90/2.8, which is 1:1, and is a fabulous portrait lens to boot. Its exceedingly sharp edge to edge, and has a 55mm front end, which fits most ring flashes out of the box. It comes in Manual and autofocus versions. Having had both, there is nothing between them in optical terms, but I have found that the manual focus lens required a decent focusing screen when you are in real close. However, I don't as a rule use ring flashes, as I have found it next to impossible to get a TTL unit to fit pentax here in Ireland at any sort of a reasonable price. I generally use two metz 45 bracket flashes on standard light clamps. Its ungainly, but works ok. it also requires a large degree of co-operation from the subject :) Hope this helps, T. At 14:18 25/06/2001 +0530, Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: Hi Jon! You are absolutely correct. Therefore, the final decision is to go for a macro lens having magnification of 1:1. Yep, I need a long working distance of about 1 feet but not less than 10 inch so that a macro ring flash can be attached on the lens. A 100mm Macro lens will do that for me.But wait a minute, I have a question. Suppose I need a longer working distance than 1 feet, then you should ask me to go for 200 mm Macro lens. In order to solve the problem in cheaply, suppose I use a teleconverter of 2x ratio. That will convert the present lens (100 mm MACRO) to 200 mm with a loss of two stops of aperture. What happens to the Macro magnification ratio? Does it remains 1:1 or it decreases. I think remains as it is. Any comments? Cheers, Ayash Kanto. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jon Hope wrote: 1:1, always. A 1:1 macro lens will do 1:2 on it's nose, but a 1:2 macro will only go to 1:1 with adapters of some sort. The real question regarding macro lenses is how much working distance you want, and therefore how much focal length you need. At 1:1 the working distance on a 50mm macro is a couple of inches from memory. It is roughly twice that for 100mm, and roughly twice that again for 200mm. The working distance is important for things that move, more than for things that don't. It is also easier to use a flash at longer working distances. I hope that helps a tad. Cheers Jon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - Terence Mc Goff | [EMAIL PROTECTED] If its worth doing, Its worth Overdoing. John William Corrington, Shreveport, 1956. PLease report all problems and flames to mailto:/dev/null ... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jan van Wijk wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:18:43 +0530 (IST), Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: Suppose I need a longer working distance than 1 feet, then you should ask me to go for 200 mm Macro lens. In order to solve the problem in cheaply, suppose I use a teleconverter of 2x ratio. That will convert the present lens (100 mm MACRO) to 200 mm with a loss of two stops of aperture. What happens to the Macro magnification ratio? Does it remains 1:1 or it decreases. I think remains as it is. Any comments? Actualy, you will have a 200mm f/5.6 macro that way that goes upto 2:1 (NOT 1:2) (assume you start with 100mm f/2.8) 2:1!! Wooow! That's great. The focusing distance will stay the same, and you double the focal-length. The quality will decrease, edges and corners will suffer, probably some light fall-off too. I am not happy to hear that but what to do that is the truth. But it could be a good solution for some (well lit!) objects in the center of the image. Regards, JvW Many Thanks Jan. Again I should say, I learnt something new that a 2X teleconverter on 200 mm MACRO LENS (1:1) doubles the magnification ratio. With kind regards, Ayash Kanto. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ayash, I have a A100/2.8 Macro which is just great. It goes 1:1, but I rarely use it that way. I took a butterfly at 1:1 last week. It looks like a monster!...bug eyes hairy feet. Amazing! you can those very fine hairs on the feet. More important, you should think about your working distance. A 50mm Macro works very close to the subject...like postage stamps. A 100mm Macro is more comfortable for me...usually 6-15 inches away. I would like to own a 200mm Macro to get even farther away. Aaah! that is quite costly but I like concept of increase working distance. Visit Mark Cassino's home page and see his photo galleries. http://www.markcassino.com Surely, I will do that. The macro photos of flowers and insects are outstanding. (The bird photos aren't too bad either!) Regards, Bob S. Many thanks for your reply. With kind regards, Ayash Kanto. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Terence Mac Goff wrote: Hi. as someone who shoots a lot of macro stuff, I'd seriously recommend the Tamron 90/2.8, which is 1:1, and is a fabulous portrait lens to boot. The minimum focussing distance for this lens is 11.4 inch. Is it enough to take shots of butterflies, bees and other insects without scaring them away? Mark Casino has always used 200mm f/4 Macro to take shots of sensitive insects which has a minimum focussing distance of 18 inch. If you try to get any closer than that, what really happens with the insects, I don't know. What about Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 MACRO (1:1) in terms of optical quanlity? Any thoughts? Regards, Ayash Kanto. Its exceedingly sharp edge to edge, and has a 55mm front end, which fits most ring flashes out of the box. It comes in Manual and autofocus versions. Having had both, there is nothing between them in optical terms, but I have found that the manual focus lens required a decent focusing screen when you are in real close. However, I don't as a rule use ring flashes, as I have found it next to impossible to get a TTL unit to fit pentax here in Ireland at any sort of a reasonable price. I generally use two metz 45 bracket flashes on standard light clamps. Its ungainly, but works ok. it also requires a large degree of co-operation from the subject :) Hope this helps, T. At 14:18 25/06/2001 +0530, Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: Hi Jon! You are absolutely correct. Therefore, the final decision is to go for a macro lens having magnification of 1:1. Yep, I need a long working distance of about 1 feet but not less than 10 inch so that a macro ring flash can be attached on the lens. A 100mm Macro lens will do that for me.But wait a minute, I have a question. Suppose I need a longer working distance than 1 feet, then you should ask me to go for 200 mm Macro lens. In order to solve the problem in cheaply, suppose I use a teleconverter of 2x ratio. That will convert the present lens (100 mm MACRO) to 200 mm with a loss of two stops of aperture. What happens to the Macro magnification ratio? Does it remains 1:1 or it decreases. I think remains as it is. Any comments? Cheers, Ayash Kanto. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jon Hope wrote: 1:1, always. A 1:1 macro lens will do 1:2 on it's nose, but a 1:2 macro will only go to 1:1 with adapters of some sort. The real question regarding macro lenses is how much working distance you want, and therefore how much focal length you need. At 1:1 the working distance on a 50mm macro is a couple of inches from memory. It is roughly twice that for 100mm, and roughly twice that again for 200mm. The working distance is important for things that move, more than for things that don't. It is also easier to use a flash at longer working distances. I hope that helps a tad. Cheers Jon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - Terence Mc Goff | [EMAIL PROTECTED] If its worth doing, Its worth Overdoing. John William Corrington, Shreveport, 1956. PLease report all problems and flames to mailto:/dev/null ... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
At 19:12 25/06/2001 +0530, Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: The minimum focussing distance for this lens is 11.4 inch. Is it enough to take shots of butterflies, bees and other insects without scaring them away? Mark Casino has always used 200mm f/4 Macro to take shots of sensitive insects which has a minimum focussing distance of 18 inch. If you try to get any closer than that, what really happens with the insects, I don't know. Actually, I suspect that this is using the partial focus knob thingy on the AF version. Both the AF and MF versions focus down to about 2cm from the barrel end to the subject once you turn on the full focus knob on the Af version. What about Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 MACRO (1:1) in terms of optical quanlity? Any thoughts? Never used it myself, as Sigma didnt have a distributor here until recently. Regards, Ayash Kanto. Hope this helps, T. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
--- Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many thanks for your comments and views. I should keep my close-up filters aside in the corner of my darkroom and allow the dust to settle on it. N!! Jody (whose silent scream was probably heard in China) __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
I think there is 10 years between 25 and 26 :) --- Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you really start to notice the birthdays after 21. they go by faster. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, petit miam wrote: --- Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many thanks for your comments and views. I should keep my close-up filters aside in the corner of my darkroom and allow the dust to settle on it. N!! Why not? I want to know if you please. Jody (whose silent scream was probably heard in China) What is the thing about China why your silent scream would ever reach there? I am inquisitive now if you don't mind. Regards, Ayash Kanto. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
The clutch on mine does change position that easily. maybe it will in time :) - Original Message - From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:12:59 +0530 (IST), Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: What about Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 MACRO (1:1) in terms of optical quanlity? Any thoughts? Optical that lens is outstanding (I have one, as well as the 200mm Pentax). Mechanically I do not like the Sigma very much: - The focus-ring moves in the other direction as on all Pentax lenses - It doubles as a manual/autofocus clutch, just as on the FA* Pentaxes but this works too light. Every time I pick it up or put it in the bag, the clutch will change position. The whole thing feels a bit wacky because of that ... Still, I made some very good close-ups of flowers and butterflies with it. Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
I have the Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 MACRO, its build quality is pretty good, not up to FA* standards, optically its very sharp with what i would consider to bev not bad bokeh. Im unsure wether i like the manual/auto focus clutch mechanism, but thats only because i'm comparing it to the ones on the FA* lenses. - Original Message - From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Terence Mac Goff wrote: Hi. as someone who shoots a lot of macro stuff, I'd seriously recommend the Tamron 90/2.8, which is 1:1, and is a fabulous portrait lens to boot. The minimum focussing distance for this lens is 11.4 inch. Is it enough to take shots of butterflies, bees and other insects without scaring them away? Mark Casino has always used 200mm f/4 Macro to take shots of sensitive insects which has a minimum focussing distance of 18 inch. If you try to get any closer than that, what really happens with the insects, I don't know. What about Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 MACRO (1:1) in terms of optical quanlity? Any thoughts? Regards, Ayash Kanto. Its exceedingly sharp edge to edge, and has a 55mm front end, which fits most ring flashes out of the box. It comes in Manual and autofocus versions. Having had both, there is nothing between them in optical terms, but I have found that the manual focus lens required a decent focusing screen when you are in real close. However, I don't as a rule use ring flashes, as I have found it next to impossible to get a TTL unit to fit pentax here in Ireland at any sort of a reasonable price. I generally use two metz 45 bracket flashes on standard light clamps. Its ungainly, but works ok. it also requires a large degree of co-operation from the subject :) Hope this helps, T. At 14:18 25/06/2001 +0530, Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: Hi Jon! You are absolutely correct. Therefore, the final decision is to go for a macro lens having magnification of 1:1. Yep, I need a long working distance of about 1 feet but not less than 10 inch so that a macro ring flash can be attached on the lens. A 100mm Macro lens will do that for me.But wait a minute, I have a question. Suppose I need a longer working distance than 1 feet, then you should ask me to go for 200 mm Macro lens. In order to solve the problem in cheaply, suppose I use a teleconverter of 2x ratio. That will convert the present lens (100 mm MACRO) to 200 mm with a loss of two stops of aperture. What happens to the Macro magnification ratio? Does it remains 1:1 or it decreases. I think remains as it is. Any comments? Cheers, Ayash Kanto. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jon Hope wrote: 1:1, always. A 1:1 macro lens will do 1:2 on it's nose, but a 1:2 macro will only go to 1:1 with adapters of some sort. The real question regarding macro lenses is how much working distance you want, and therefore how much focal length you need. At 1:1 the working distance on a 50mm macro is a couple of inches from memory. It is roughly twice that for 100mm, and roughly twice that again for 200mm. The working distance is important for things that move, more than for things that don't. It is also easier to use a flash at longer working distances. I hope that helps a tad. Cheers Jon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - Terence Mc Goff | [EMAIL PROTECTED] If its worth doing, Its worth Overdoing. John William Corrington, Shreveport, 1956. PLease report all problems and flames to mailto:/dev/null ... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: as someone who shoots a lot of macro stuff, I'd seriously recommend the Tamron 90/2.8, which is 1:1, and is a fabulous portrait lens to boot. The minimum focussing distance for this lens is 11.4 inch. Is it enough to take shots of butterflies, bees and other insects without scaring them away? Depends. Depends on what kind of insect they are. Depends on how cold they are. Depends on what colors you wear. Depends on where the sun is in relation to you and to them. Depends on how much they need to take a rest. But most of all, it depends on how good your stalking skills are, which is a combination of how you move and all the previous factors. I've done 1:1 shots of dragonflies using a 100mm on extension. Much easier to use the 200mm though, but even then, you need to stalk them a bit. 1:1 shots of ladybugs are also pretty easy unless they are wandering around looking for food (they are fast-crawling insects). 7:1's of non-flying aphids are even easier (pluck the leaf and take 'em into the studio :-) 11.4 inches will be pleanty far enough provided you stay with the easier insects at first. However, try them all. You'll soon learn which ones you're good at stalking and which you need to get better before doing. I think my first 1:1 macro shot was of a housefly -- it was chilly, the sun was in the right direction and I'd had lots of practice stalking them from when I used to flick them with my fingers as a kid). Mark Casino has always used 200mm f/4 Macro to take shots of sensitive insects which has a minimum focussing distance of 18 inch. If you try to get any closer than that, what really happens with the insects, I don't know. They get scared and move. Those that can fly, do so. Those that cannot, move to the other side of the leaf, or to the far side of the plant, or the other side of the stalk, etc. Either way, they move and hide or otherwise ruin the composition :-) Personally, I've found the hardest insects to get pictures of are jumping spiders and hoverflies (still haven't managed either). Hoverflies are just skittish beasts, but last summer I concluded that the working distance of a 200mm should be just workable for them (reasonable percentage of successful stalkings). Jumping spiders, on the other hand, are absolutely impossible for me. They have stunning vision for an insect. They get scared and run away when I get within about 3 ft (1m) of them and get scared and move way sooner than that. Hoverflies are downright easy in comparison. Oh, and dragonflies.. just require some stalking and spending some time finding their favorite lookout point. The ones with lookouts farthest from the water seem to be the easiest to shoot too (probably more tired or something). hope that helps, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Jumping spiders, on the other hand, are absolutely impossible for me. They have stunning vision for an insect. They get scared and run away when I get within about 3 ft (1m) of them and get scared and move way sooner than that. -smile- insects have 6 legs, spiders are not insects... Phil - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 at 15:05:17 +0530 (IST), Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [macrophotography: shallow depth of field, long exposure times; will a true macro lens help?] The optical formulas relating depth of field to aperture, focal length, and magnification are complex, but their implications are pretty clear: Depth of field at a given aperture is closely related to the magnification factor. No matter what lens you use, you will have shallow depth of field when you are working at near lifesize imaging. There is simply no way around this: it arises from the fundamental physics of the situation. IOW, if you took photographs of the same scene with the same magnification using a series of different lenses all set at the same aperture, you would find little or no variation in the depth of field. A true macro lens will *not* overcome these limitations, but may have other advantages such as a flat field of focus and optimization for high resolution at close-up distances. If you are seriously interested, I direct you to the following Kodak publications: N12A: Close-Up Photography (essentially up to 3x lifesize) N12B: Photomacrography (3x to 50x lifesize) N16: combined hardback edition of N12A N12B These were first published around 1969; I do not know if they are still in print, but may be worth pursuing. I was lucky enough to find a second hand copy of N16. Note that these are *not* the last word on the subject, merely the reference I happen to own; however, they seem to be extremely thorough, and I doubt much has changed of a fundamental nature in 30 years. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:15:26 -0800, you wrote: Oh, and dragonflies.. just require some stalking and spending some time finding their favorite lookout point. The ones with lookouts farthest from the water seem to be the easiest to shoot too (probably more tired or something). Dragonflies love flash. It's a bright light source that could possibly attract prey. Just fire the flash (use the test button) in the general vicinity of a dragonfly on its perch. It will either stay in position and motionless for several minutes, or move away then come back near the flash source fairly quickly. Most everything anyone needs to know about macro photography in the field is covered in Shaw's book called, I think, Closeups in Nature. -- Happy Trails, Texdance http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:29:13 -700, you wrote: SNIP No matter what lens you use, you will have shallow depth of field when you are working at near lifesize imaging. There is simply no way around this Yep. Stack two US copper pennies together. Look at them edge-on. The thickness of two pennies is the depth of field for 35mm film (at f16 and lifesize magnification.) To compensate for shallow DOF, first I had to humbly realize just how shallow macro DOF really is, at any given distance/focal length/aperture. Then I had to try to compose the photo to maximize the effect of the tiny amount of DOF available. For example, I try to position the camera so that the film plane is parallel to a major portion of the subject. I also like to emphasize the sharp areas by blurring the background (use a longer lens, keep the subject close and in front of a distant, uncluttered background.) I have a DOF calculator program called fCalc on my computer. It is freeware, and probably available out there somewhere. At lifesize (1:1) magnification using a 200mm lens, the subject will be 15.7 inches from the film plane, and at f16 the DOF is a miniscule 0.082 inches (.209 cm). This photo was about 1/2 lifesize before cropping. At f8, I had a whopping 0.116 inches (0.296 cm) of DOF to work with. You can see the limited depth of field: http://web2.airmail.net/linnm3/brown.jpg It is a successful photo for me, because the part of the subject I wanted in focus is actually in focus and sharp. With the best lenses, (and Pentax makes some fine Macro lenses), there is more information on the film than can be presented at normal web photo sizes (which I'll demonstrate in my July PUG entry). -- Happy Trails, Texdance http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Parsed below... Regards, Bob... -- Those who say that life is worth living at any cost have already written an epitaph of infamy, for there is no cause and no person that they will not betray to stay alive. Sidney Hook From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. I am using close up filter kit to achieve magnification as great as 1:1. There are two basic problems that I encountered while using this kit. One is however, the depth of field is not enough for apertures like f/8. I have to stop down to f/16 and sometimes f/22 to get acceptable depth of field. Depth of field is a function of achieved focal length, distance to subject, and aperture. How these are constructed (single macro lens or additional lenses) is irrelavent. What is acceptable depth of field depends on the subject and the desires of the photographer. ... A related problem is that the plane of focus is just one. I don't understand the above sentence. A very slight motion of the hand is enough to throw the subject out of focus. Therefore, I always use tripod while doing macro photography. Yet there is another problem that persists and it is low shutter speed that I have to choose for an aperture of f/16, 22. Sometimes, it goes to as low as 1 second (I use 200 ASA speed films). In this time period, if the subject moves either intensionally or unintensionally (say, because of gentle wind), it is impossible to take a shot. The tradeoffs between DOF, shutter speed and ISO always exist. This is why many nature shots of, say very small frogs, do not have the entire animal in focus. The eyes (at least one) are always in tack sharp focus though. Decent bokeh is often important here too. As to the wind, try using a wind block. Another problem that I face is poor colour rendition. Color rendition is a function of many things. Using any single element lens attachment will add some color aberation. To avoid this (and other aberations), it's usually better to use extention tubes or bellows rather than macro lens kits. Bellows are unwieldy contraptions, but are very flexable. Lens extention kits are easier to use, but a full kit with helicoid can be expensive and they are not as adjustable. Now, I have certain questions regarding a real Macro Lens, before purchasing it. It will be great if I can purchase a macro lens of magnification ratio of 1:1 but sometimes it is not possible. The following lenses are excellent at 1:1 ratio, all require an extension (tubes or bellows) for 1:1 ratio: SMCA 100/2,8 Macro SMCK 100/4 Macro SMCM 100/4 Macro SMCM 100/4 Dental Macro (identical to SMCM 100/4 Macro, but with different markings) SMCK 100/4 Bellows (requires bellows or hellicoid to focus) ..Macro lenses having magnification of 1:2 can be converted to 1:1 by including an adapter at its filter thread, e.g., Vivitar 100 mm f/3.5 Macro. Yes. These add some curvature of the field of focus, and if they are not achromatic (having at least 2 elements of differing index of refraction) they will add color aberations. How does a macro lens with 1:1 adapter on behaves with respect to an ordinary lens with close-up filter stacked on it as far as depth of field and colour rendition is concerned ? Difficult to tell. Possibly better. Better to have an extension tube. Do I have to go down to smaller apertures to achieve acceptable depth of field ? If yes, then there is virtually no difference in using a macro lens and an ordinary lens with close-up filters. Please note that low apertures demand low shutter speed and here is the problem. Well, the answer is the DOF will be the same. On the other hand, normal lenses will not have the flat field of focus that a macro lens is supposed to have and my experience is that most add-on lenses for macro make this worse. In fact, this flat field of focus is the sole reason for the macro lens's existance. Curvature of the field of focus is often mistaken for poor DOF as the results are often similar. As to your using the smaller apertures, remember that the f/stop is relative to the focal length of the lens at infinity. At 1:1 the actual focus is doubled so that the f/8 marked on your lens is really f/16. When you are using what is marked as f/22 your lens is really f/44. What is acceptable depth of field is up to your creative talent. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
- Original Message - From: Bob Blakely Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! The following lenses are excellent at 1:1 ratio, all require an extension (tubes or bellows) for 1:1 ratio: SMCA 100/2,8 Macro Will do 1:1 with no additional extension. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. Submission deadline is July 1st, 2001 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
Sorry. Regards, Bob... --- In the carboniferous epoch we were promised perpetual peace. They swore if we gave up our weapons that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us, and delivered us, bound, to our foe. And the gods of the copybook headings said, 'Stick to the devil you know.' --Rudyard Kipling From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bob Blakely Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! The following lenses are excellent at 1:1 ratio, all require an extension (tubes or bellows) for 1:1 ratio: SMCA 100/2,8 Macro Will do 1:1 with no additional extension. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed!
- Original Message - From: Bob Blakely Subject: Re: Macro lens: Some insight needed! Sorry. Tis OK. You are allowed one error. HAR! William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. Submission deadline is July 1st, 2001 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
