Butterflies, Moths and Assorted Insects...

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,304
How about obnoxiously bright bees?

8E7A8004 Final.jpg


8E7A8009 Final.jpg


8E7A8018 Final.jpg
 

Nemorino

EOS R
Aug 29, 2020
124
146
The bee in this pictures is even in worse condition:

SMD_4417.jpg

SMD_4425.jpg

Two common wasps fighting for the food for their brood.
The second won!

Eos R with a Sigma 105mm Makro and MT24 @ Iso 1600, f/10, 1/1250sec
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,263
2,541
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


DSC_9091_DxO.jpg
DSC_9294_DxO.jpg
DSC_9285_DxO.jpg
DSC_9195_DxO.jpg

DSC_9017_DxO.jpg
DSC_9158_DxO.jpg
DSC_9346_DxO.jpg
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
393
337
Yorkshire
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
Some lovely shots - looks like it was a worthwhile weekend then!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISv

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,757
8,506
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 194998 View attachment 195000 View attachment 195001 View attachment 195002
View attachment 195003 View attachment 195008 View attachment 195009
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.
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,263
2,541
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.
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...
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,263
2,541
Here are some of my last insects photos with the 200-500 f5.6, after that I attached the 500PF and never change it. That bee looks pretty much as the one posted by Bert but they are different species.

DSC_6012_DxO.jpg

DSC_6025_DxO.jpg

DSC_6518_DxO.jpg

DSC_6726_DxO.jpg

DSC_6958_DxO.jpg
DSC_7082_DxO.jpg
DSC_7124_DxO.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,757
8,506
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. 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.
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,263
2,541
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.
" You do have to see clearly in the viewfinder that it is focus when around 3m " - not when so windy...
Yeah mfd 90cm (and magnification X 0.33!) sounds really impressive! For bigger insects you may need to zoom down.
Well, unfortunately you have to wait little bit - it's still January!
 

Nemorino

EOS R
Aug 29, 2020
124
146
To be honest I prefer shorter focal length for macro. I just love the look!:love:

Some BIF with the Eos R and the RF 35 @ 1/2000, f/8 Iso 500

Schwalbenschwanz.jpg


And a bumblebee shot with the Laowa 60mm Makro and MT24 @ 1/320s f/8 Iso 3200
Bumblebee.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Click and jprusa

Click

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 29, 2012
13,920
2,029
Canada
To be honest I prefer shorter focal length for macro. I just love the look!:love:

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


Very nice! I especially like the first picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nemorino

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,263
2,541
To be honest I prefer shorter focal length for macro. I just love the look!:love:

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 3200 View attachment 195260
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:unsure:.
Here you have few shots taken by my daughter (I'm posting with her permission!) - always hand-held and always in the field (windy or not...). BTW she doesn't think only the butterflies are beautiful:)!
Edited: I forgot to mention the lens - 105mm Sigma (macro)

DSC_4905_DxO_DxO.jpg
DSC_5828_DxO_DxO.jpg
DSC_9835_DxO-1_DxO.jpg
 
Last edited:
<-- start Taboola -->