600mm as a macro ;-)

dcm

It's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
696
11
#5
Assuming the shot was near MFD, the max magnifications from the manual

lens - 0.15x
with EF12 II - 0.18x
with EF24 II - 0.22x
with EF1.4x - 0.21x
with EF2.0x - 0.30x
 
Jan 25, 2017
218
86
#6
sorry details :)

no Teleconverter (they tend to be soft on this). 600mm on a crop sensor (1.6x) .. so about 800mm

No tubes.

useful as bugs tend to be skittish.
 
Jul 6, 2017
899
102
Davidson, NC
#7
If my reasoning is correct, then the magnification would be the same on a crop sensor as on FF. You just see less with the former. But the subject would remain the same size on the sensor.
 
Aug 16, 2012
4,578
966
#10
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.
ruddydarter_mating_3Q7A4283-DxO_560mmDOII_5DSR.jpg
Dragonfly_915A8726-DxO_100-400mm_7DII.jpg
kingfisher_dragonfly_2B4A9479_DxO_800mmDOII_5DIV_.jpg
dragonfly_3Q7A0300_Sigma150-600_5DSR.jpg
 
Last edited:

Zeidora

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 15, 2015
668
10
#13
I've used extension tubes on a 300/2.8 and works very well. Still have to compare it to a 180M with 1.4x (240 mm) re IQ.
 

NWPhil

one eye; one shot - multiple misses
Oct 4, 2011
272
0
#14
used the sigma 150-600mm C as a macro since I didn't bring my macro... worked out surprisingly well!
nice shot - large zooms or focals do work very well for CLOSE-UPS. For true macro with a reverse ring it's the opposite; you actually want wide angle lenses. Can't image the sig150-600 with a reverse ring LOL
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
Apr 30, 2017
613
320
#15
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.
Alan, post full sized photos please:p! You know what I mean ;)...
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
Apr 30, 2017
613
320
#16
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...
Crocothemis servilia - Scarlet skimmer 6 female.jpg
DSC_2535_DxO.jpg
DSC_2796_DxO-1.jpg
DSC_4001_DxO.jpg
DSC_4435_DxO.jpg
DSC_0869_DxO.jpg
Torenia concolor_DxO-1.jpg
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,038
409
#17
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.
hornet.jpg
 
Last edited:
Likes: Click
#18
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
Amazing collections of images. What a clarity of images! I love the macro of flowers. Nice collections.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
222
195
#19
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
Superb pictures!:love::love::love: