Dragonflies and Damselflies

[@zajicekpavel]

amazingly sharp, but you can already see the problem with the light at those apertures

 

[AlanF]

amazingly sharp, but you can already see the problem with the light at those apertures

What problem?

 

[@zajicekpavel]

What problem?

too dark in the details for me, most in penultimate photo...the head is almost invisible

 

[AlanF]

too dark in the details for me, most in penultimate photo...the head is almost invisible

That's nothing to do with the aperture, it's the relative light intensity and reflectivity in the different regions. It would be the same difference at wider apertures. Look at the ones above in more uniform light.

 

[Maximilian]

too dark in the details for me, most in penultimate photo...the head is almost invisible

First of all thank you for the compliments.
Background info for you:
Right now, I'm mainly concerned with the sharpness when using the 2x TC.
I had a copy that was either a lemon or I just didn't know how to use it properly.
The photos prove the opposite, at least at close range.
And I still need to test the TC with the 100-500. That lens might have an issue... let's hope not so

But I can understand your comment and taste:
The black forehead and the almost black background in combination with the brightly illuminated compound eyes give a high contrast.
This is how it would look like, if I'd raise the shadows and reduce the contrast. IMO too much PP and it starts too look flat. But YMMV.

 

[Maximilian]

Some white-legged damselflies (Platycnemis pennipes).
Last one a very immature one.
R6m2+100-400+2x@800mm


R50+100-400+2x@800mm

 

[Maximilian]

The red-eyes (Erythromma najas) have returned, too.
R6m2+100-400+2x@800mm

 

[AlanF]

@Maximilian the RF100-400mm is performing very well with the 2xTC here. I haven't used it myself because it's not nearly as good as the RF 100-500m with the the 2xTC at long distances. have checked it out carefully today at close to the minimum focal distance and it is very similar in IQ to the 2xTC on the 100-500mm, and much lighter and more convenient to use. I am posting some close up insect shots with it.

 

[AlanF]

First of all thank you for the compliments.
Background info for you:
Right now, I'm mainly concerned with the sharpness when using the 2x TC.
I had a copy that was either a lemon or I just didn't know how to use it properly.
The photos prove the opposite, at least at close range.
And I still need to test the TC with the 100-500. That lens might have an issue... let's hope not so

But I can understand your comment and taste:
The black forehead and the almost black background in combination with the brightly illuminated compound eyes give a high contrast.
This is how it would look like, if I'd raise the shadows and reduce the contrast. IMO too much PP and it starts too look flat. But YMMV.

View attachment 230049

You were focussing on the lenses of the of the eyes and that's what made your first version a much better photograph, it contrasted and emphasized them just like have a narrow depth of field brings out a subject.

 

[Maximilian]

@Maximilian the RF100-400mm is performing very well with the 2xTC here. I haven't used it myself because it's not nearly as good as the RF 100-500m with the the 2xTC at long distances. …

… and you‘ll get nuts when you try DIF with it+TC. Much too slow AF.
I‘ve stopped trying after some attempts.
Naked 100-400 is good enough for DIF.
I did prove that in the past, several times.

Tomorrow, the weather should be good enough for tests of TC+100-500.
l‘ll report.

 

[AlanF]

… and you‘ll get nuts when you try DIF with it+TC. Much too slow AF.
I‘ve stopped trying after some attempts.
Naked 100-400 is good enough for DIF.
I did prove that in the past, several times.

Tomorrow, the weather should be good enough for tests of TC+100-500.
l‘ll report.

I wouldn't go nuts because I would never try it! I need a wide field of view for anything in flight and a 2xTC slows down AF too much.