Posted by Peter Barritt on August 28, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Barrie was mentioning using 300mm lens with rings for butterflies etc. anyone use these regularly? which strength ring or rings do you generally use and are the results as good as 180mm macro in terms of depth of field?
Peter
I'll leave the 300mm advice to those that use that combination but to answer your second question. Assuming an identical magnification is required then depth of field will be exactly the same whether using a 180mm macro, a 300mm lens, a 100mm macro, a 600mm lens, a 20mm lens etc,etc,etc.
What the longer focal lengths give you is increased working distance and a narrower angle of view which is a major advanage when trying to isolate your subject from the background.
Extension tubes are the way to go, the Kenko set being the most versatile and best value, you awap them arond depending on how much mag you want. IMO the quality from a 300 used this way can be every bit as good as a 180, particularly for flighty subjects because of the working distance gain, you will notice that it is a combination I use a lot.
As for DoF - that will be as near as possible identical given the same subject magnification whether you use a 50mm lens or a 300mm lens.
Hello Peter.
As far as I am concerned the 300mm 2.8 is my main lens,with Butterfly's, Dragon Flys,etc,I use the Nikon PK-13 (27.5) the most,and although it means I am on manual,thats just fine,as it allows you to taylor the focus just as you want it,rather than IMHO letting the auto decide what it thinks you want.Hope this may help.
Stewart...
Posted by Sean Bolton on August 28, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Hi Peter
I own both a 300mm F4 (non IS), 13mm and 25mm extension tubes, and the 180mm macro.
My main observation when using extension tubes is that the focal range that can be in focus is severely restricted so if you move the camera to close or too far away from the subject then you would not be able to achieve focus.
With the 180mm macro (or any macro lens) you have a focus range from 1:1 to infinity so it is easier to quickly acquire focus and also change composition, e.g. from a close-up frame filler to a backed away environment shot.
I think you get a feel for working distances with experience with the extension tubes but I do find using them in the field a bit frustrating trying to position the camera to be within the range of focus.
Thats the only downside for me. However I always carry extension tubes as they are light and easy to carry and can be used with any lens for additional macro power. It is very effective with shorter focal lengths too such as the 50mm or 24-70.
I used Sigma 400 APO macro for butterflies. It is a great lens and will do 1:3 macro on it's own. Unfortunately it could not be rechipped for newer Canon digital bodys. I also used Canon's 500 for that task, and with TC and tubes, it's extremely useful (for flowers too). I was taught that DOF is only dependable on magnification rate and aperture regardless of lens used. So for the butterfly image of the same size, DOF would be the same regardless of a lens being used.
Discussion
7 repliesPeter
I'll leave the 300mm advice to those that use that combination but to answer your second question. Assuming an identical magnification is required then depth of field will be exactly the same whether using a 180mm macro, a 300mm lens, a 100mm macro, a 600mm lens, a 20mm lens etc,etc,etc.
What the longer focal lengths give you is increased working distance and a narrower angle of view which is a major advanage when trying to isolate your subject from the background.
Extension tubes are the way to go, the Kenko set being the most versatile and best value, you awap them arond depending on how much mag you want. IMO the quality from a 300 used this way can be every bit as good as a 180, particularly for flighty subjects because of the working distance gain, you will notice that it is a combination I use a lot.
As for DoF - that will be as near as possible identical given the same subject magnification whether you use a 50mm lens or a 300mm lens.
HTH
Phil
As far as I am concerned the 300mm 2.8 is my main lens,with Butterfly's, Dragon Flys,etc,I use the Nikon PK-13 (27.5) the most,and although it means I am on manual,thats just fine,as it allows you to taylor the focus just as you want it,rather than IMHO letting the auto decide what it thinks you want.Hope this may help.
Stewart...
I own both a 300mm F4 (non IS), 13mm and 25mm extension tubes, and the 180mm macro.
My main observation when using extension tubes is that the focal range that can be in focus is severely restricted so if you move the camera to close or too far away from the subject then you would not be able to achieve focus.
With the 180mm macro (or any macro lens) you have a focus range from 1:1 to infinity so it is easier to quickly acquire focus and also change composition, e.g. from a close-up frame filler to a backed away environment shot.
I think you get a feel for working distances with experience with the extension tubes but I do find using them in the field a bit frustrating trying to position the camera to be within the range of focus.
Thats the only downside for me. However I always carry extension tubes as they are light and easy to carry and can be used with any lens for additional macro power. It is very effective with shorter focal lengths too such as the 50mm or 24-70.
cheers
Sean
I use the 300 often as a macro. If you send me your e-mail address I'll send you a couple of butterfly shots I've taken recently.
Cheers,
Marko