600mm as a macro ;-)
- Thread starter snappy604
- Start date
Dragonflies and damselflies come out very well with all of these sharp lenses at a distance. Here are various combinations of a Sigma 150-600mm, 400mm DO II + TCs and 100-400mm II with a 7DII, 5DSR and 5DIV. I think that they are better than macro because you can get good depth of field for these quite large insects.
Oh, and I had to persuade a kingfisher hold a dragonfly about 5m away.
Oh, and I had to persuade a kingfisher hold a dragonfly about 5m away.
Last edited:
Well, now seriously: in the last few years I go only with my birding lens - it's heavy (at lest for me) and taking additional lenses for hiking makes no sense, it is doing good enough job for me: when there are no birds you click on every thing that looks interesting...
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't
! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.
And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't
! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
I like long focal lengths for macro's, but 15 ft in the case of the Canon 600mm L is further than I'd want. If it focused to 1 or 2 meters, it would be nice. I was under the belief that macro lenses should have floating front elements to get the best results, so its nice to see great images.
I have not used my 100-400l much this year, but it does focus closely, I'd have to use at least a monopod to kold it stable for long enough to capture a creature that moved about, but for still items, I could do it.
I looked at 400mm photos of macro like subjects, the only ones I found were with my 400D and were jpeg shots from a long time ago before I used RAW exclusively. It actually turned out good, considering it being handheld and a severe crop with few pixels left. A high mp camera would have lots more detail.
I have not used my 100-400l much this year, but it does focus closely, I'd have to use at least a monopod to kold it stable for long enough to capture a creature that moved about, but for still items, I could do it.
I looked at 400mm photos of macro like subjects, the only ones I found were with my 400D and were jpeg shots from a long time ago before I used RAW exclusively. It actually turned out good, considering it being handheld and a severe crop with few pixels left. A high mp camera would have lots more detail.
Last edited:
Likes:
Click
Well, now seriously: in the last few years I go only with my birding lens - it's heavy (at lest for me) and taking additional lenses for hiking makes no sense, it is doing good enough job for me: when there are no birds you click on every thing that looks interesting...
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.
And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
View attachment 183071 View attachment 183072 View attachment 183073 View attachment 183074 View attachment 183075 View attachment 183076 View attachment 183077
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't
! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
View attachment 183071 View attachment 183072 View attachment 183073 View attachment 183074 View attachment 183075 View attachment 183076 View attachment 183077
Well, now seriously: in the last few years I go only with my birding lens - it's heavy (at lest for me) and taking additional lenses for hiking makes no sense, it is doing good enough job for me: when there are no birds you click on every thing that looks interesting...
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.
And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
View attachment 183071 View attachment 183072 View attachment 183073 View attachment 183074 View attachment 183075 View attachment 183076 View attachment 183077
Many times it has the advantage over the 105mm macro because the creatures are so shy.
On other cases if you shoot a flower on the tree with macro lens you have to hike with good leader on your back - anybody tried this? I didn't
! Or simply the object is so far and there is no way to get closer because of the brush around.And some times you just don't want to be close to your objects by safety reasons...
Most of these photos were posted already on different topics of this forum. I have many others that don't fit the recent restrictions in the Forum (and on this topic the restrictions are even more strickt) and I'm so lazy to work on them.
In my own terminology I call all this "close ups".
The last photo is taken with 105mm macro lens, the flower is so tiny for the magnification my birding lens can produce, and it for me is a real macro. Now put this flower in controlled conditions (no wind, no canopy that change the light) and stack it in several shoots (I just don't shoot in controlled conditions) - and you will see what the macro lenses can do...
View attachment 183071 View attachment 183072 View attachment 183073 View attachment 183074 View attachment 183075 View attachment 183076 View attachment 183077
