Info

kenglade

Is there some reason equipment info is not included in these wonderful images. I'm just getting started in macro and I'd like to know what was used to make these spectacular captures?

Ken

basflt

kenglade wrote: »

Is there some reason equipment info is not included in these wonderful images. I'm just getting started in macro and I'd like to know what was used to make these spectacular captures?

Ken

speaking for myself : laziness

what you could do is ; go to the site of the poster and look up the photo's you are interested in
you will find the EXIF there

GOLDENORFE

Yes , we are all lazy i guess

a macro lens around the 100mm mark is best , then a set of kenko extension tubes can be added to double the magnification to give good detail in subjects at the higher magnification!

kenglade

GOLDENORFE wrote: »

Yes , we are all lazy i guess

a macro lens around the 100mm mark is best , then a set of kenko extension tubes can be added to double the magnification to give good detail in subjects at the higher magnification!

OK, I was just curious about which lens was in play. I've seen where some prefer the Nikon 100 and some the Tamron 90. Was just curious if there was any discernible difference in IQ to justify the cost differences.

basflt

may i recommend a Sigma 105 or 150 mm macro ?
good quality versus price , better then Nikkor and cheaper too

kenglade

basflt wrote: »

may i recommend a Sigma 105 or 150 mm macro ?
good quality versus price , better then Nikkor and cheaper too

Sounds good to me. Right now I'm wide open to suggestions. Any chance you can post an example or two here of the 105 or send to me overhead at kenglade@gmail.com

Many thanks.

basflt

kenglade wrote: »

Sounds good to me. Right now I'm wide open to suggestions. Any chance you can post an example or two here of the 105 or send to me overhead at kenglade@gmail.com

Many thanks.

i only have the 150 mm , not the 105 mm
with Nikon 7000
http://basflt.smugmug.com/Macro/plants-flowers/i-LSFHmbq/1/XL/DSC5042-XL.jpg
http://basflt.smugmug.com/Macro/bugs-1/i-ZCdjVwK/1/XL/DSC5415-XL.jpg

kenglade

basflt wrote: »

i only have the 150 mm , not the 105 mm
with Nikon 7000
http://basflt.smugmug.com/Macro/plants-flowers/i-LSFHmbq/1/XL/DSC5042-XL.jpg
http://basflt.smugmug.com/Macro/bugs-1/i-ZCdjVwK/1/XL/DSC5415-XL.jpg

Aw, shoot. I think the 150 would be overkill for my use. But I'll see if i can find some samples of the 100 elsewhere. Thanks anyway.

basflt

kenglade wrote: »

I think the 150 would be overkill for my use.

why ?
what you mean with "my use" ?
IMO 90 or 100 or 150 mm does not make a huge different
you can always add tubes later

if you not sure what you want , maybe first try tubes alone with a regular lens

Art Scott

to see the exif of an image..I use the EXIF VIEWER for FIREFOX ...then I can right click on theimage and see the exif as shown here:


Hope that helps....

As to a 150 being over kill... not at all...I currently use a Nikon 105 AIS (manual focus lens) and that is a 1/2 lifesize macro (micro in Nikon language) or 1:2 to get full 1:1 or Life size images I must add a Nikon PN-11 ... what I do not care for is the working distance I know have of approx 7 inches....many times this does not allow enough natural light to strike y subject with me casting a shadow on the subject....so a 150 -300 macro would allow a greater working distance most are around 15 - 18 inches this also would allow the use of reflectors or flash much easier to obtain satisfactory results...jmho ...

another really nice feature of the 150mm+ macros is the tripod collar...for some of us that is a necessary tool for our shooting ... at least it is for me, to allow the positioning of the lens for multi exposures ... ... .... ... I do all multi exposures in cam not photoshop...still a little old school here.


EDIT: Forgot to mention that NO EXIF Viewer will show the exif info if the poster has saved the image for the web....in photoshop, save for the web, strips all that data out...

kenglade

basflt wrote: »

why ?
what you mean with "my use" ?
IMO 90 or 100 or 150 mm does not make a huge different
you can always add tubes later

if you not sure what you want , maybe first try tubes alone with a regular lens

That's what I'd doing right now (Kenko) since I'm still shopping (and saving) for a macro lens. As I said, I'm new at macro so I may say something stupid. What the hell, I say stupid stuff all the time anyway. Thanks for your help. I may be back.

kenglade

Excellent points about the advantages of the 150. Now i have a new goal.