Beautifull Demoiselle
Still playing with the new Nikor Micro 40mm.
I would be interested in peoples views. The 40 mm gives the slight wide effect whicjh I personally like. It seems easier to handle and as I have said before I prefer being closer to the subjects. ( Easier to get bits of clutter out the way !!)Everyone has different views.
The 150mm gives the usual macro background blurr. I took the smae critter with both and will post one of the others for comparison if the mods don't mind.
This was at 100th sec 320 ISO at F8
Crop from lanscape , There are obviousley various ways to crop it so I haven't played with that too much.
Cheers
JR
This is the same subject with the Sigma 150
Cheers
JR
Posted by Nick Mckeown on June 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM
I much prefer the second image JR as it is an image I have been after for a while now. I think wider angle shots of insects showing its environment need a lot more thought with regards composition and for me the first image has the quite distracting highlights above the B Dem and a little too much empty space to its left. Possibly moving postion to your right may have helped. Anyhoo thats my 10 cents for what its worth. The second image is a corker though, again very, very jealous!
Nick.
Posted by Andy Astbury on June 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM
A Demoiselle that naughty Club-tail hasn't eaten!
In all honesty John both images have their own distinct merits - me being me I automatically gravitate to the 150mm image because there's less distraction from the subject; but the 40mm shot does a far better job of showing the subject in context - which, let's face it, is more like the way we 'see'.
So in reality neither is better than the other because they do different 'jobs'
Cheers Nick - the kind of ideas I want to play with. As it happenens I wanted to keep the bits of blue sky in to emphasise the dappled light through the trees. !! It would be easy to crop out though. Thanks
JR
Andy
Your reply crossed posts. Thanks. Its an interesting one.Not many are doing wide angle stuff anymore so it will be interesting to see what people think.
I think the comparison in quality is interesting too.
Cheers
Hi John I much prefer the second image I used to have the 55 & 60mm nikkor macros but sold them, I prefer the longer macro's I am looking forward to the new sigma 180 f2.8 os.
it's funny you should post this today John. I went out this morning with just my Sigma 150 and my Tokina 35mm macro - within seconds of arrival my Sigma 150 had broken in half (the rear fitting plate came clean off and broke the electric contacts as well). I almost called it a day instantly but persevered with the 35mm alone. It was hard work at times but I did get some images I think I'm happy with.
Both approaches have their merits though I do agree with Nick that the wideangle approach does require some care with the background. Personally I prefer blue skies or a clearer view of the insect's habitat e.g. a lake or stream. So, of the 2 you've posted I'd probably go for the second one but there's not much in it.
Matt
Rear plate came off !!! Crikey I'll will stick to the wide then
What do you reckon caused it ? Were you holding it all by the lens ? We all do it
Cheers
JR
Hi John, believe it or not it just came off as I was taking the lens off! It turns out the rear plastic end of the Sigma 150 (the bit that attaches to the camera) is just held on by 3 small screws which go through plastic fittings. The plastic fittings had all broken - I imagine over time they had become cracked with the odd knock and the final straw was today. It's a real design flaw in my opinion given that the entire weight of the lens is on these 3 fittings. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before. I'll be sending it off to Sigma tomorrow....
Second one for me too, JR. I like wideangle macro, but as already mentioned it's very difficult to pull off. A while back you posted a wideangle macro shot of some orchids, that was a top drawer image.
Discussion
10 repliesStill playing with the new Nikor Micro 40mm.
I would be interested in peoples views. The 40 mm gives the slight wide effect whicjh I personally like. It seems easier to handle and as I have said before I prefer being closer to the subjects. ( Easier to get bits of clutter out the way !!)Everyone has different views.
The 150mm gives the usual macro background blurr. I took the smae critter with both and will post one of the others for comparison if the mods don't mind.
This was at 100th sec 320 ISO at F8
Crop from lanscape , There are obviousley various ways to crop it so I haven't played with that too much.
Cheers
JR
Cheers
JR
Nick.
In all honesty John both images have their own distinct merits - me being me I automatically gravitate to the 150mm image because there's less distraction from the subject; but the 40mm shot does a far better job of showing the subject in context - which, let's face it, is more like the way we 'see'.
So in reality neither is better than the other because they do different 'jobs'
JR
Andy
Your reply crossed posts. Thanks. Its an interesting one.Not many are doing wide angle stuff anymore so it will be interesting to see what people think.
I think the comparison in quality is interesting too.
Cheers
Phil.
Both approaches have their merits though I do agree with Nick that the wideangle approach does require some care with the background. Personally I prefer blue skies or a clearer view of the insect's habitat e.g. a lake or stream. So, of the 2 you've posted I'd probably go for the second one but there's not much in it.
Matt
Rear plate came off !!! Crikey I'll will stick to the wide then
What do you reckon caused it ? Were you holding it all by the lens ? We all do it
Cheers
JR
Second one for me too, JR. I like wideangle macro, but as already mentioned it's very difficult to pull off. A while back you posted a wideangle macro shot of some orchids, that was a top drawer image.
Andy...