Post by telliottmbamsc on Jan 29, 2017 15:14:49 GMT
Interesting. I've recently experienced a lot of change in my way to picture bugs. I upgraded to a 7D Mark II Canon about the same time as I lost (yes, lost) my Canon 100 mm f2.8 Canon lens someplace in the field. The lens I'm now shooting with now, for the upcoming season, is a 180 mm f2.8 Sigma and I have to admit I'm not that comfortable with it. It's good when you can't get especially close to the subject but if you have a nice and patient bug that lets you get close, I find that even on f13, the depth of field is razor thin. I've tried stacking but haven't been all that pleased with my result. It's difficult to shoot the stackable images I need (for the software I'm using) when I'm in the field. I'm trying to find something that will give me better depth of field but still give me super (butterfly scale)sharpness for shots where I'm about, say, 18 to 24 inches away (I like the result from shooting small subjects that fill the entire image) Ideas? Anybody? email@example.com
Post by deliasfanatic on Jan 29, 2017 17:52:14 GMT
DOF won't vary on macro subjects (the subject itself) with a different focal length lens; DOF is entirely dependent on subject magnification and aperture. So, let's say that you photograph a subject at half life size with 50mm, 100mm, and 180mm lenses, all at f/11: the subject's DOF will be the same on all three. Background will be very different, especially if it's distant from the subject.
That said, a 180 is going to be easiest to use for insects in regard to getting close enough, especially if they are easily startled or shy. If you're shooting handheld, the Sigma's image stabilization is certainly a plus over Canon's present 180mm.
[Adam's note for non-pros: DOF = depth of field. I had to think about it myself.]
Post by telliottmbamsc on Jan 31, 2017 1:47:03 GMT
Thanks all, interesting comments. My main objection is that at, say, f13 the DOF on my 180 mm drops off much faster than it did with my 100 mm. Yea it can give you some nice bokeh but if you're shooting a butterfly or anything else with a modicum of depth this can mean a portion of the wing being out of focus (and I hate that). And my experience with fixed focal lenses like the 100 and 180 is you do get more depth the further away the subject is, but you end up losing a commensurate amount of detail. I shoot my fair share of plants over in the driftless area (area in south west Wisconsin that was never covered by the last continental glacier)and the result I'm getting with shooting RAW size from a somewhat exaggerated distance and then using ADOBE to crop in on the flower to enlarge the bloom is dicey and difficult to gauge even with a lcd screen. I'm currently investigating a 50 mm 1.8 IS AF, I'm hoping this will reveal, in reasonable detail, all points of a wild orchid blossom (lots of depth), as well as the odd mushroom or any bug shot with a lot of depth. As an aside, I'm also in the market for a cheap external flash. The fact that my built-in flash results in a top shutter speed of 250 just doesn't cut the mustard when shooting butterflies. Thermoregulation is easy to compensate for with the built in flash provided the butterfly is on the ground, but if it is riding a windy flower or fluttering to take nectar on a shaded blossom the 250 top speed stinks. Here is a wild orchid shot that I "soft-wared in" the depth of field I wanted: www.flickr.com/photos/9600117@N03/31775755194/in/photostream