Spidey (70-200VR + 500D)

[Flew]

I was taking my gear out to the truck as usual this morning and saw this guy. He had built his web across our sidewalk. It was very hard to get a decent focus lock because the web was about 6 feet tall and 5 feet wide, and the slightest breeze (including my body movement) caused him to move far more than the DOF with this lens set-up. For reference, the spider's body is about 1/4 inches long. I also used the 1.7 TC.

In any case, here are some shots.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Thanks for looking.

 

[mike mac]

Nice stuff, I have been thinking about the 500D will have to add it to my list fo things to do. I hate to spend a ton of $$$ on a dedicated macro lens.. I dont even wnat the thought to creepinto this brain of mine or I will have one

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[mike mac]

Paul is evil.... :twisted: He is propagating LLD among many forum members in one thread there ought to be a lawagainst that ........but you are right the thin DOF is hard on stationary objects almost seem like you would need some rails and almost impossible on moving objects, but it does deliver sharp results when executed like Frank did

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Flew]

Hey Paul, in spite of getting called evil in two straight threads, you're a pretty nice guy. 8)

I greatly appreciate all of this info. It is just what I need to help me decide what to do. There is no place that I can try out these lenses. We only have one real photo shop in town, and they sometimes have a 70-200VR and a 80-400VR but that's the extent, so I have to go on what I read here and on sites like B&H.

I did get to try a 70-180 last weekend and it was great except for one thing. The zoom ring was very sticky. I also read about one here that had the same problem. Not a problem you want to have when trying to get a macro shot in focus.

As to the issue of actual and effective 1:1 distances and apertures, I don't have enough optics knowledge to figure that one out on my own (maybe some day, but not yet). Could you expound on those issues a little. It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Kevin Scott]

Ick! Spiders!! But nice shots nonetheless!

In spite of that, I'm looking hard at the .....as well as the Tamron 180. :roll:

At one point while researching, I found a site that rated various lenses on a 1-5 scale. Of all the lenses that appeared there, only the Tamron 180 received a 5 out of 5!!

I think Vinh has(d) it but I got the impression he wasn't happy with it. Might be worthwhile to get his input on this particular lens. I also think he just got a new macro but not sure which one.

 

[Flew]

Thanks Kev. I'll check with him.

Paul, as long as they are not partial dippy q's, I should be able to handle that. :lol:

Thanks again,

 

[JeffKohn]

The Dof would be quite a bit better with the 70-180 & 6T combo.

The thing to watch is the magnification and working distance ratios - a high mag. when close will have a much shallower DoF than the same mag. when further away.

For this reason alone, the 180/200 lenses are way better for this type of subject than the 50/60/90 crowd.

I thought I had read that at near 1:1 magnification, the DOF is the same regardless of focal length/distance; essentially DOF becomes a function of magnification. Maybe that's not true, or maybe it depends on how close to 1:1 you are (ie there could be signficant differences even at 1:2 maybe?).

 

[Lisa]

Hi Frank:

After having worked with this combination for a few days, I must say that this is remarkable work here. First of all, the slightest wind blowing that web would invariably knock that spider out of the DOF....did you hand hold this? My own conclusions have been that when I get the subject in focus, this combination rivals my 60mm as far as clarity and detail. More often than not, I am missing. But I will continue to work with this and get some kind of technique down. I was able to get a tiny colored fly the other day and another wasp or two (they were drinking water so they remain in one place for a longer period of time).

I don't know if this article will help you, it is one of those things that you have to sit down and really absorb. I have often wondered how to figure out magnification ratios myself and information on this is relatively scarce even on the web. This is what I found today:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/Introduction to closeup.htm

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Flew]

Hi Frank:

After having worked with this combination for a few days, I must say that this is remarkable work here. First of all, the slightest wind blowing that web would invariably knock that spider out of the DOF....did you hand hold this? My own conclusions have been that when I get the subject in focus, this combination rivals my 60mm as far as clarity and detail. More often than not, I am missing. But I will continue to work with this and get some kind of technique down. I was able to get a tiny colored fly the other day and another wasp or two (they were drinking water so they remain in one place for a longer period of time).

I don't know if this article will help you, it is one of those things that you have to sit down and really absorb. I have often wondered how to figure out magnification ratios myself and information on this is relatively scarce even on the web. This is what I found today:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/Introduction to closeup.htm

Lisa,

Excellent link. I only read the first few paragraphs, but I'll read the rest when I get home tonight.

To answer your question, I shot these from my tripod. I don't have very steady hands to begin with, and with the very shallow DOF of this combo, I have no chance of getting an in-focus shot without a tripod. You are right about this being a great set-up for static subjects, and not so hot if the subject is moving. This latter case is the reason that I'm thinking of getting a true macro lens.

It is great to have a forum with such nice and knowledgeable folks, that are willing to help each other learn and improve.

Thank you so much. :wink:

 

[Gale]

Frank,

Steal Janies hair spray... rofl..

Great shots pal.

Yeah I was going to mention Bjorn. But how about Kramp.. thats great stuff.

I tried to answer this at work and got one sentence written and had to close the forun and go back to that dam TRICARE site again. I worked my butt off today.

Hate my job.

Ps....All plans down the drain.. on to plan B...whatever that is.

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Gilles]

The spider short are very clear and sharp. When you put the 500D on a micro lens, it's time to get a focusing track, very hard to focus with a tripod when you are near the minimum focusing distance of the lens.

 

[Flew]

The spider short are very clear and sharp. When you put the 500D on a micro lens, it's time to get a focusing track, very hard to focus with a tripod when you are near the minimum focusing distance of the lens.

Gilles and Everyone,

Right now I'm using the 500D on the 70-200VR, but I agree that focusing is a challenge. I was talking to Harris (Backdoctor) last night, and he mentioned the DK-17. He had just tried one out and said that it made the viewfinder look much bigger. I wonder whether it is optically good enough to make macro focusing more precise?

Do you have any recommendations on a focusing rail? I know that RRS has them. Anyone else make one that you like?