First try at a wasp.

Messages
133
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
I was taking some photos the other day, and come across a wasp that was settled on a plant. I thought I would see how close I could get, and if I could get an acceptable shot. This was the result, was the best of 8.

DSC_0185 by Conan Middleton, on Flickr
 
Not a bad first attempt, missed the focus on the eyes by a hair though. Without even taking outside conditions like wind into consideration focusing on such tiny subjects can be difficult, just the act of breathing can throw a shot off.

Also that is a drone fly not a wasp.:)
 
Nice shot and yes, a drone or hoverfly.
What was your lens for this, 18-55 kit lens?
 
@RyanB @Graham Whoops, my bad, I thought it was a wasp.

I only currently own my 18-55MM kit lens, so I used that. I think the data shows it was at 55MM.

I notice you mention breathing, I did find that I had to hold my breath to get a steady shot. Shame I missed the focus on the eyes a bit though, but I will keep trying. At the moment I am enjoying taking photos of everything, so don't really have a style that I fit into- I want to try everything :).

@lightshipman I didn't even think of manual focus, next time I give this type of photography a try I will keep that in mind.
 
I love my macro very much, i use a 100mm macro lens and i use af all the time but i did start with a camera that couldn't work the af.
Do what you gotta do, you'll get there.
Ps, now I'm confident with my photography i do landscape, long exposure and now I'm going to have a go at animal portraiture.
Have fun and keep posting those shots.
 
I love my macro very much, i use a 100mm macro lens and i use af all the time but i did start with a camera that couldn't work the af.
Do what you gotta do, you'll get there.
Ps, now I'm confident with my photography i do landscape, long exposure and now I'm going to have a go at animal portraiture.
Have fun and keep posting those shots.

I don't know much (anything really) about macro photography. This was just on the off chance, my friend actually pointed it out to me while I had my camera in hand.

I'm glad you are now confident in your photography, I want to try a bit of everything and a long exposure, star trail type shot is next on my list to try and learn.

You mention a 100MM lens for macro. I am thinking of getting another lens seeing as I only have the kit lens, the AF-P 18-55 VR G.

Something like a Nikkor 55-200 or maybe the 70-300? This is more expensive and I realise with the crop factor the 55-200 will be a max of around 306MM compared to FX, and the 300 a whopping 459mm!

Are either of these ideal or good for macro photography? I want to get the most out of what I buy, and I can see myself sticking with DX due to the lower cost when I upgrade my body. Unless I win the lottery, of have more income ;)
 
I started with some extention tubes (with electrical contacts) attached to my 18-55 kit lens. It's a pretty cheap way of getting into close up, macro. Then moved onto a 150mm sigma macro lens, bought used, it was a good price, i paid under £300 for it.
If you do look to buy a macro lens in the future, be aware that a macro lens can be used as a "normal" lens, they aren't just for macro.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much (anything really) about macro photography. This was just on the off chance, my friend actually pointed it out to me while I had my camera in hand.

I'm glad you are now confident in your photography, I want to try a bit of everything and a long exposure, star trail type shot is next on my list to try and learn.

You mention a 100MM lens for macro. I am thinking of getting another lens seeing as I only have the kit lens, the AF-P 18-55 VR G.

Something like a Nikkor 55-200 or maybe the 70-300? This is more expensive and I realise with the crop factor the 55-200 will be a max of around 306MM compared to FX, and the 300 a whopping 459mm!

Are either of these ideal or good for macro photography? I want to get the most out of what I buy, and I can see myself sticking with DX due to the lower cost when I upgrade my body. Unless I win the lottery, of have more income ;)

A 55-200 would be one way forward that could make a lot of sense at this stage in your photographic journey, especially as you are thinking of staying with DX for a while. For close-up/macro it could be used with close-up lens(es). I used a similar setup for a couple of years, with a Canon 70D and an EF-S 55-250, which like the DX 55-200 is an APS-C lens which is small, light and relatively inexpensive (at Amazon UK, around £135 for the 55-250 vs around £260 for the 55-200). The 55-250 is quite sharp. I don't know if that would be the case with the 55-200.

Used without a close-up lens the 55-200 would fit quite naturally with your 18-55 in terms of focal lengths. Compared to a prime macro lens it would give you some extra flexibility for other subject matter at longer focal lengths. For flowers I used the 70D with the 55-250 with a mild close-up lens and with the bare lens. For insects, spiders etc I used it with stronger close-up lenses.

Extension tubes work best with shorter focal length lenses and close-up lenses work best with longer focal lengths. With the 52mm filter thread on the 55-200 you would be able to use the smaller diameter (and less expensive) close-up lenses if you used Canon or Marumi close-up lenses which come in several sizes. The Raynox 150 and 250 close-up lenses come in one, fairly small, diameter. I would guess (and it is a guess) that diameter would not be a problem with the 55-200.

If you did go down this route you should if at all possible check before purchasing the lens whether it would work well with a close-up lens, preferably the one(s) you intended to use with it. For example, Canon makes three 55-250 lenses and the first one I tried did not focus well with the close-up lens I use most these days, and did not focus at all with a more powerful close-up lens. I changed to a more recent model and that worked fine with all my close-up lenses.
 
I notice you mention breathing, I did find that I had to hold my breath to get a steady shot. Shame I missed the focus on the eyes a bit though, but I will keep trying. At the moment I am enjoying taking photos of everything, so don't really have a style that I fit into- I want to try everything :).
For me a large part of macro and close up is controlling my breathing not necessarily holding my breath. Once the shot is lined up and composed I get as near as I can in focus manually. Then I just try to time my shots so my breathing and its resulting body sway pushes or pulls the subject into a more perfect focus. Standing up and hunching over make things much more difficult. Shooting from a stable position or bracing yourself against something (kneeling and using your knee for example) helps a lot.
 
For me a large part of macro and close up is controlling my breathing not necessarily holding my breath. Once the shot is lined up and composed I get as near as I can in focus manually. Then I just try to time my shots so my breathing and its resulting body sway pushes or pulls the subject into a more perfect focus. Standing up and hunching over make things much more difficult. Shooting from a stable position or bracing yourself against something (kneeling and using your knee for example) helps a lot.
This ^^^ Holding your breath leads to shaking.
 
The 55-200 seems quite a logical choice for me when I can afford it, then I will have everywhere from 18MM to 200MM covered.

Am I correct that I still have to apply the X1.53 conversion even with a DX lens? For example, my kit lens at 18MM will actually be showing 27.5MM compared to full frame? I was unsure of this and if DX len's showed the full frame conversion already on them.

OK, I will try controlled breathing for these type of photos as I don't want to shake and ruin the shot, or pass out and ruin my face ;)
 
The best way I know to see what effect breathing/holding your breath has is to shoot targets with a rifle and telescopic sight.
 
The 55-200 seems quite a logical choice for me when I can afford it, then I will have everywhere from 18MM to 200MM covered.

Am I correct that I still have to apply the X1.53 conversion even with a DX lens? For example, my kit lens at 18MM will actually be showing 27.5MM compared to full frame? I was unsure of this and if DX len's showed the full frame conversion already on them.

I'm afraid I have never used a Nikon camera so I don't know. I believe Nikon cameras show the actual aperture, taking account of magnification, but I haven't heard that they report the full frame equivalent focal length rather than the actual focal length, and I would have thought it a bit odd if they did. Perhaps they do though.

When you say "will actually be showing" do you mean that is what the camera will tell you (e.g. in the viewfinder while composing shots, or on the LCD when reviewing shots), or that is what you will see in the Exif data for an image?
 
Back
Top