Opnions needed about halos on Canon 100mm macro images

hermanzaumhermanzaum Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
edited August 12, 2008 in Holy Macro
Hi all,

I asked the same question on Fred Miranda forums, but I guess people here may have more experience with my specific setup. Sorry if this is the wrong place.

Yesterday I've been trying out new lighting schemes with my new flash bracket and got what looked like very nice pictures on the camera's LCD. After opening those pictures at my computer, I was very disappointed because they showed a flaw I've already seen (albeit not as obviously) in previous pictures of mine: halos around lighter objects against dark backgrounds.

At first I tough the problem was caused by the position of the flash head/diffuser. However, after a batch of test pictures where I did change the flash's position (and many other parameters), I came to this conclusion: it's a lens limitation.

My testing comprised of pictures at varying apertures (mostly f/8, f/11 and f/14), magnifications, optional use of tubes (a Kenko set), all at different positions of the main light (flash). The subject was a piece of white felt against a black background (my camera bag). The camera was on a tripod and I focused manually on the felt fibers using live view at 10x. Timer and MLU were used.

What I observed was the same haloing I've got in the field. The halo intensity varies depending on some factors:
- Flash position didn't alter halos. Even with the light emitting surface completely behind the lens front element, the halos were still there (which discarded some kind of flare caused by the flash).
- Aperture also didn't have any effect.
- Higher magnification amplified the halos. The lens is at it's worst at 1:1, being already much better at 1:1.5.
- The use of extension tubes to achieve greater magnification made the problem a lot worst. Using a full set of Kenko tubes (68mm) and putting the lens at 1:1 gave me the worst pictures (very bad lost of details).

Below is a 100% crop of an image taken with the lens set at 1:1 without any tubes (tripod, 1/250s, f/11, ISO 200):
halo_notubes_f11.jpg


And this one is a 100% crop of a image with the 68mm of tubes added (tripod, 1/250s, f/11, ISO 200). It is so bad that one can think that I missed the focus entirely (it wasn't the case, I assure you):
halo_tubes_f11.jpg


The picture below, reduced for web, was taken at similar settings: 68mm of tubes, lens set at about 1:1 (magnification at around 2:1), 1/250s, f/11, ISO 400, monopod. It looks OK at web sizes, but it isn't printable as it doesn't carries much more detail than what you can see at this size:
IMG_4801.jpg


Now the question: such "haloing" is expected from the Canon 100mm macro at 1:1? And it really gets that bad with extension tubes? It's time to save for a MPE-65?

Thanks in advance.
Cesar "Herman" Carvalho
Florianopolis / Brazil

PS: Sorry about my bad English.

Comments

  • zackerzacker Registered Users Posts: 451 Major grins
    edited August 11, 2008
    could it just be blur? i have seen incredibly sharp images from this lens...
    http://www.brokenfencephotography.com :D

    www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb

    Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink

    Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
  • hermanzaumhermanzaum Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited August 11, 2008
    zacker wrote:
    could it just be blur? i have seen incredibly sharp images from this lens...
    Hi Zacker,

    It could be blur on the spider shot, but every shot from that spider with that specific lighting turned up with those halos (and I was using a monopod).

    Also, the test images taken from the piece of felt were done with a (solid) tripod, MLU, timer, etc., so it wasn't camera shake.

    I have no idea of what it is.
  • zackerzacker Registered Users Posts: 451 Major grins
    edited August 12, 2008
    Hmmmm... have you tried the test on anythinig solid like rocks or nails or anything like that?? maybe the lights giong through the felt threads and making it glow? or you just have a bad copy of the lens..
    http://www.brokenfencephotography.com :D

    www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb

    Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink

    Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,134 moderator
    edited August 12, 2008
    What are you using to diffuse the flash?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • hermanzaumhermanzaum Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited August 12, 2008
    zacker wrote:
    Hmmmm... have you tried the test on anythinig solid like rocks or nails or anything like that?? maybe the lights giong through the felt threads and making it glow? or you just have a bad copy of the lens..

    Yes, I did. I've been using this combo (100mm macro + tubes) for some time. The lens is sharp when the subject have a flatter lighting, as seen on this shot taken a few minutes after my spider shots (full set of tubes, 100% unprocessed crop):
    IMG_4811_crop.jpg

    Now, compare with the 100% (unprocessed) crop from the spider shot:
    IMG_4802_crop.jpg

    So far, light hairs + darker background =ugly haloing :(
  • hermanzaumhermanzaum Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited August 12, 2008
    ziggy53 wrote:
    What are you using to diffuse the flash?
    On each one of those pictures, I was using a Lumiquest BigBouncer on a Canon 580EX flash attached to a Wimberley macro bracket. Sometimes I also use a Lumiquest SoftBox.

    On the attached felt fiber pictures the diffuser was behind and above the lens (I've tried to put the flash at different positions but the halos were always there). On the spider shot the diffuser was above the subject. Both, however, show the same problem so I'm confident it isn't just a common lens flare but something else. It looks like some kind of spherical aberration, pretty much like the dreamy look one gets when using a Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open. The question is why does it get so much worse when using the extension tubes?

    I have no idea of what's going on ne_nau.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.