Upvote
0
The wings are not in good conditions anymore!How about obnoxiously bright bees?
The wings are not in good conditions anymore!
What's this straight white line right above the bee's head?
Some lovely shots - looks like it was a worthwhile weekend then!!From the last weekend.
#1 - The Larger Lantana Butterfly
## 2 and 3 - The Smaller Lantana Butterfly
## 4 and 5 - The Long-tailed Blue
#6 - The Large Orange Sulphur
#7 - The Monarch Butterfly
Did you use the 500PF for these? I find it great because it's so sharp at its mfd of 3m and that's a nice distance for getting a decent dof? Interesting that Sulphur is spelled with a "ph" and that's the usual spelling as chemists use sulfur, even in British journals.From the last weekend.
#1 - The Larger Lantana Butterfly
## 2 and 3 - The Smaller Lantana Butterfly
## 4 and 5 - The Long-tailed Blue
#6 - The Large Orange Sulphur
#7 - The Monarch Butterfly
View attachment 194998View attachment 195000View attachment 195001View attachment 195002
View attachment 195003View attachment 195008View attachment 195009
Yes it was 500PF. So far I have to learn that the mfd is 300 instead of 220 cm (like in 200-500). Got plenty of out of focus shots. At home after opening the metadata files I found a lot of shots taken at 299cm - some of them acceptable. May be I have to change the settings of the camera - it is set to shoot even if the focus is not right there (for flying objects).Did you use the 500PF for these? I find it great because it's so sharp at its mfd of 3m and that's a nice distance for getting a decent dof? Interesting that Sulphur is spelled with a "ph" and that's the usual spelling as chemists use sulfur, even in British journals.
You do have to see clearly in the viewfinder that it is focus when around 3m. The 200-500 is optimised for shorter distances and I would have thought excellent for insects. Can't wait to try out the 100-500mm when the butterflies start appearing since it is much better than the 100-400mm very close up though it catches up quickly further away.Yes it was 500PF. So far I have to learn that the mfd is 300 instead of 220 cm (like in 200-500). Got plenty of out of focus shots. At home after opening the metadata files I found a lot of shots taken at 299cm - some of them acceptable. May be I have to change the settings of the camera - it is set to shoot even if the focus is not right there (for flying objects).
So far I have better results for insects with 200-500 but it's to early to say (this was my first day dedicated to the insects with 500PF and it was very windy).
May be the reason is on me...
" You do have to see clearly in the viewfinder that it is focus when around 3m " - not when so windy...You do have to see clearly in the viewfinder that it is focus when around 3m. The 200-500 is optimised for shorter distances and I would have thought excellent for insects. Can't wait to try out the 100-500mm when the butterflies start appearing since it is much better than the 100-400mm very close up though it catches up quickly further away.
To be honest I prefer shorter focal length for macro. I just love the look!
Some BIF with the Eos R and the RF 35 @ 1/2000, f/8 Iso 500
And a bumblebee shot with the Laowa 60mm Makro and MT24 @ 1/320s f/8 Iso 3200
Well, I also prefer a macro lens for this kind of shots. The problem is that I don't like to change lenses in the field and most importantly: my macro lens was occupied by my daughter (plus one of my back up bodies) so I practically have no macro lens.To be honest I prefer shorter focal length for macro. I just love the look!
Some BIF with the Eos R and the RF 35 @ 1/2000, f/8 Iso 500
View attachment 195261
And a bumblebee shot with the Laowa 60mm Makro and MT24 @ 1/320s f/8 Iso 3200View attachment 195260