Getting fed up with ... everything ?! Help Needed

dibbly dobbler

dibbly dobbler

Messages
2,512
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Gents and Ladies - have any of you gone from an MPE back to a 'normal' macro lens (eg 100mm) or whatever? I have been shooting a fair by recently with MPE65 + MT24-ex (and custom diffusers) and getting some nice results but what a faff it is! And getting close to bees etc is very very tricky and frustrating due to the small working distance.

Also the key thing is that I have been shooting at 1:1 virtually all the time - causing me to ponder if it is worth all the effort the MPE involves.

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated! :)

Here are some pics - could I do similar with a much simpler setup?!


Bombus lucorum by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Bombus lapidarius worker by Mike Smith, on Flickr


In the Palm of my Hand by Mike Smith, on Flickr
 
I like the MP-E because of it's short focal length (65mm). This means I can diffuse my flash fairly easily (without needing a massive diffusion area). I mainly shoot very small bugs, completely lit by flash though.

Longer focal lengths are better for ambient lighting (or a little bit of fill flash) and all the other benefits of longer focal lengths (subject isolation, better working distance etc.) Certainly for large bugs you may be better off using a longer 1:1 lens. I don't own a longer focal length macro lens, but I can see the advantages and would probably invest in one if I did more of this kind of work.

If you are thinking of selling the MP-E to get a longer focal length macro, if you do need more magnification later on you can always use extension tubes or achromats etc. and you can even try these out on standard tele lenses if you already have some.
 
I use two lenses - the MPE-65 and the 100mm. For large subjects in warm weather - like dragonflies and butterflies the 100mm comes into its own. Added you can shoot with it backed off for these and without flash.

However - the MPE, gives you something else, something that is not overly heavy, and goes from 1:1 up. Yes I can too shoot a lot at 1:1, but when you get that subject that is there, you can easily move to 2:1 for example to get a better image. Much easier than using extension tubes etc.

Before my MT-24ex went off for repair ( about 2 months ago! Come on Canon! ) I was using just using packing foam over the flash head, and another wrap of it for a tent like diffusion. Light weight, and easy. No brackets at all.
 
Similar to this setup - I was meaning to photo it - but failed to do so before the failure of the MT-24. Replace the vellum with packing foam sheeting, and remove the cup holder and the dove deodorant caps. - I just rolled it from velcro fastening up and velcro to flash heads. Vellum worked well too.

http://www.macro-photo.co.uk/2015/mt-24ex-flash-diffuser-mk10/
 
Last edited:
Thanks Chris :)

I think my main issues are:

1) Not shooting at high mag very often (bit like having a convertible and never putting the roof down!)
2) My current lighting rig is a faff (it's about 12 inches across!)

So maybe I need to deal with them separately...

Your lighting rig looks good (y)
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks for the reply Tim. Interesting point about the flash - hadn't considered that. A big part of my frustration is the faff with the MT24-ex - it needs a lot of diffusion and I have extending brackets etc etc

What flash are you using at the minute?
Click to expand...
At the moment I'm using the 90ex. I've gone through a process of downsizing, and I was trying to find something smaller/lighter than my 430ex II. After persevering for a while, I've come to the conclusion, the 90ex isn't really up to the job. It's fine for the purpose it was intended, but for macro work it doesn't recycle fast enough and the battery life soon drops off.

Anyway, this shows by current setup (although I am using a small off-the-shelf softbox on it now rather than a DIY job:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/14938859743/in/album-72157635110238203/

I would like the MT-24 but I have reservations about the bracket. I think it will cause a problem with ground clearance (I need to get very close to the ground) and I'm not convinced it will angle correctly for the really tiny stuff. I have some ideas for a DIY bracket, but just can't justify the cost of it atm.
 
TimmyG said:
At the moment I'm using the 90ex. I've gone through a process of downsizing, and I was trying to find something smaller/lighter than my 430ex II. After persevering for a while, I've come to the conclusion, the 90ex isn't really up to the job. It's fine for the purpose it was intended, but for macro work it doesn't recycle fast enough and the battery life soon drops off.

Anyway, this shows by current setup (although I am using a small off-the-shelf softbox on it now rather than a DIY job:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/14938859743/in/album-72157635110238203/

I would like the MT-24 but I have reservations about the bracket. I think it will cause a problem with ground clearance (I need to get very close to the ground) and I'm not convinced it will angle correctly for the really tiny stuff. I have some ideas for a DIY bracket, but just can't justify the cost of it atm.
Click to expand...

Excellent - thanks again Tim. Need to have a ponder - maybe buy a 100mm and have both for a while to see what I end up using. I've bought a couple of cheapo LED ringflashes to play with so I may see how I go with them and the 100mm (they were not really producing enough light for the MPE).
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Bought myself a Raynox 150 to stick on the front of my Tamron 16-300 - will see how I go with that! (y)
Click to expand...

Ah, you're in my territory with that. :) I wasn't going to say anything because of the emphasis on macro lenses, but the Raynox 150 is what I use most for invertebrates, on my FZ200 bridge camera, usually with flash. And a Canon 500D on Canon 55-250 STM on Canon 70D for botanical work, almost always natural light.

I use achromats by choice. I have tried macro lenses, Canon 100L Macro, Sigma 105 Macro, MPE-65 with MT24EX, but it turned out that I much prefer using achromats. My year long journey exploring various options is documented (at tedious length) in my journey thread.

dibbly dobbler said:
Here are some pics - could I do similar with a much simpler setup?!
Click to expand...

Yes. :)
 
GardenersHelper said:
Ah, you're in my territory with that. :) I wasn't going to say anything because of the emphasis on macro lenses, but the Raynox 150 is what I use most for invertebrates, on my FZ200 bridge camera, usually with flash. And a Canon 500D on Canon 55-250 STM on Canon 70D for botanical work, almost always natural light.

I use achromats by choice. I have tried macro lenses, Canon 100L Macro, Sigma 105 Macro, MPE-65 with MT24EX, but it turned out that I much prefer using achromats. My year long journey exploring various options is documented (at tedious length) in my journey thread.



Yes. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick! I actually was prompted to try the Raynox after a quick read of your excellent thread :)

I have a 100D with the excellent Tamron 16-300 as my 'walkabout' kit (I also have a 6D and various L lenses for other things) so if the Raynox works as well as it seems to then I will be close to my dream of 1 lens to do it all and I can shoot landscapes, wildlife then stick the Ranox on and do some macro! Seems too good to be true but worth a try.

PS - do you have a Flickr site or some such please?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks Nick! I actually was prompted to try the Raynox after a quick read of your excellent thread :)
Click to expand...

:)

dibbly dobbler said:
I have a 100D with the excellent Tamron 16-300 as my 'walkabout' kit (I also have a 6D and various L lenses for other things) so if the Raynox works as well as it seems to then I will be close to my dream of 1 lens to do it all and I can shoot landscapes, wildlife then stick the Ranox on and do some macro! Seems too good to be true but worth a try.
Click to expand...

Definitely worth a try.

dibbly dobbler said:
PS - do you have a Flickr site or some such please?
Click to expand...

This is the best entry point. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections

Please note that the images with names starting "NOT MY IMAGE" are ... not my images. They are used to illustrate post processing suggestions for other people's images.

The annual collections are almost all invertebrates and botanical stuff in our garden. The more recent annual collections include a "Phototechnics" collection. These typically include images of various rigs etc I've tried and some examples of images captured with different rigs.

The albums in the Avon Wildlife Trust collection are from several local nature reserves, and almost all the images are of invertebrates.

Almost all of this stuff was captured using achromats on zoom lenses (or bare zoom lenses), starting in 2007 with a Canon S3 bridge camera, then a Canon SX10 bridge camera, and more recently (and currently) a Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera (for invertebrates using flash) and Canon 70D dSLR (for natural light work).

Please bear in mind that almost all of the images have been post processed (except some in Phototechnics albums). Almost all are single images; there are probably less than 20 stacks, and perhaps less than 10.

There are not many high magnification images. There are a few, of springtails, barkflies and fruit flies, for which I use my more powerful achromats, but apart from that I most often work at (in APS-C terms) 1.5:1 or less (1.5:1 is the maximum magnification with the Raynox 150 on the FZ200), and occasionally up to almost 2.5:1 when using the Raynox 250 on the FZ200.
 
GardenersHelper said:
:)



Definitely worth a try.



This is the best entry point. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections

Please note that the images with names starting "NOT MY IMAGE" are ... not my images. They are used to illustrate post processing suggestions for other people's images.

The annual collections are almost all invertebrates and botanical stuff in our garden. The more recent annual collections include a "Phototechnics" collection. These typically include images of various rigs etc I've tried and some examples of images captured with different rigs.

The albums in the Avon Wildlife Trust collection are from several local nature reserves, and almost all the images are of invertebrates.

Almost all of this stuff was captured using achromats on zoom lenses (or bare zoom lenses), starting in 2007 with a Canon S3 bridge camera, then a Canon SX10 bridge camera, and more recently (and currently) a Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera (for invertebrates using flash) and Canon 70D dSLR (for natural light work).

Please bear in mind that almost all of the images have been post processed (except some in Phototechnics albums). Almost all are single images; there are probably less than 20 stacks, and perhaps less than 10.

There are not many high magnification images. There are a few, of springtails, barkflies and fruit flies, for which I use my more powerful achromats, but apart from that I most often work at (in APS-C terms) 1.5:1 or less (1.5:1 is the maximum magnification with the Raynox 150 on the FZ200), and occasionally up to almost 2.5:1 when using the Raynox 250 on the FZ200.
Click to expand...


Excellent - thanks again! Some amazing stuff in there. I'd never have believed you could get these results with that kit.

Sorry if it's a dumb question but how are you getting such high shutter speeds when using the flash on the in-flight shots? Best I can do is around 1/200 on my DSLRs...
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks Chris :)

I think my main issues are:

1) ................................ (bit like having a convertible and never putting the roof down!)
Click to expand...

I have the MPE-65 and a convertible and have no intentions of getting shot of either. It's a comfort knowing if I want to shoot more than 1:1 or 1:2 I have the MPE (I also have the Sigma 105 and Venus 60) and if the weather's fine the Oakleys are on and the hood comes down. End of!!
 
BRASH said:
I have the MPE-65 and a convertible and have no intentions of getting shot of either. It's a comfort knowing if I want to shoot more than 1:1 or 1:2 I have the MPE (I also have the Sigma 105 and Venus 60) and if the weather's fine the Oakleys are on and the hood comes down. End of!!
Click to expand...

I'm not one to knock another man's life choices so if you're happy I'm happy :)
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Excellent - thanks again! Some amazing stuff in there. I'd never have believed you could get these results with that kit.
Click to expand...

That's quite a common belief I think. :) There are some others where I go against the received wisdom too - for example using very small apertures, using autofocus and using a tripod (but not as normally used!)

One of the nice things about closeup/macro is that there are lots of different ways of tackling it, and part of the fun is finding out which kit, capture techniques and processing suit you best. (And that can change over time anyway, like the fact I've not been using a tripod lately, have started using manual focus for some types of subject and change my post processing software and techniques from time to time.)

dibbly dobbler said:
Sorry if it's a dumb question but how are you getting such high shutter speeds when using the flash on the in-flight shots? Best I can do is around 1/200 on my DSLRs...
Click to expand...

I'll go around the houses a bit ...

DSLRs and interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras use focal plane shutters. They use two curtains. The first one starts out closed and the second one starts out open. When you take a shot the first curtain opens, exposing the sensor, and then the second curtain shuts, ending the exposure. At higher shutter speeds the second curtain starts closing before the first curtain has finished going across. This means that only a slit is being exposed at any one time. This means that a flash pulse, which is very rapid, will only illuminate the area of the sensor behind the slit at the time of the flash pulse. 1/200 or so (depending on the camera) is the fastest shutter speed for which the second curtain starts closing after the first curtain has finished going across, so the whole sensor is exposed, if only for a brief moment, but long enough for the very brief flash pulse.

With a lot of flash units you can use what is called HSS (High Speed Sync) or FP (Focal Plane) flash. The flash stays on for the whole duration of the exposure so the exposure happening through a moving slit at higher shutter speeds is not a problem. However, HSS/FP flash uses a lot of power. Also, and more important in my experience, if the level of the light output is fixed (which seems to be the case with the flash units I have used), then the amount of illumination is proportional to the shutter speed. This can make things very complicated and can be limiting, for example if you are trying to balance flash and bright ambient illumination.

I believe (although I have never found documentation of this) that the FZ200 does not use a focal plane shutter, but instead uses a leaf shutter inside its fixed lens. It can synchronise with ordinary flash at shutter speeds up to around 1/2000 second. (Faster than that the shutter isn't open long enough and cuts off some of the flash illumination.) Because it is using ordinary rather than HSS/FP flash there are no complications. As well as being able to use faster shutter speeds to try to freeze motion (although 1/2000 isn't fast enough to freeze the motion of flies' and bees' wings), it makes it easy to balance ambient and flash illumination in strong ambient light where you need to operate above the [EDIT: focal plane] flash sync speed to avoid overexposure from the natural light component of the illumination. That is the main advantage for me.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
That's quite a common belief I think. :) There are some others where I go against the received wisdom too - for example using very small apertures, using autofocus and using a tripod (but not as normally used!)

One of the nice things about closeup/macro is that there are lots of different ways of tackling it, and part of the fun is finding out which kit, capture techniques and processing suit you best. (And that can change over time anyway, like the fact I've not been using a tripod lately, have started using manual focus for some types of subject and change my post processing software and techniques from time to time.)



I'll go around the houses a bit ...

DSLRs and interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras use focal plane shutters. They use two curtains. The first one starts out closed and the second one starts out open. When you take a shot the first curtain opens, exposing the sensor, and then the second curtain shuts, ending the exposure. At higher shutter speeds the second curtain starts closing before the first curtain has finished going across. This means that only a slit is being exposed at any one time. This means that a flash pulse, which is very rapid, will only illuminate the area of the sensor behind the slit at the time of the flash pulse. 1/200 or so (depending on the camera) is the fastest shutter speed for which the second curtain starts closing after the first curtain has finished going across, so the whole sensor is exposed, if only for a brief moment, but long enough for the very brief flash pulse.

With a lot of flash units you can use what is called HSS (High Speed Sync) or FP (Focal Plane) flash. The flash stays on for the whole duration of the exposure so the exposure happening through a moving slit at higher shutter speeds is not a problem. However, HSS/FP flash uses a lot of power. Also, and more important in my experience, if the level of the light output is fixed (which seems to be the case with the flash units I have used), then the amount of illumination is proportional to the shutter speed. This can make things very complicated and can be limiting, for example if you are trying to balance flash and bright ambient illumination.

I believe (although I have never found documentation of this) that the FZ200 does not use a focal plane shutter, but instead uses a leaf shutter inside its fixed lens. It can synchronise with ordinary flash at shutter speeds up to around 1/2000 second. (Faster than that the shutter isn't open long enough and cuts off some of the flash illumination.) Because it is using ordinary rather than HSS/FP flash there are no complications. As well as being able to use faster shutter speeds to try to freeze motion (although 1/2000 isn't fast enough to freeze the motion of flies' and bees' wings), it makes it easy to balance ambient and flash illumination in strong ambient light where you need to operate above the [EDIT: focal plane] flash sync speed to avoid overexposure from the natural light component of the illumination. That is the main advantage for me.
Click to expand...

Nick you're a machine! Great info, thanks very much indeed :)
 
Not to go against any ones advice tbh I havent read through bar the OP.

I would say get another lens you won't regret it. I shoot both Venus and MP-E but have had Tamron 90mm/Sigma 105mm. MPE doesn't get as much use as it should or deserves but the Venus is hard to drag out of my hands.

2-5x mag can be very specialised but I use 2 X 270ex ii with it :).
 
Tintin124 said:
Not to go against any ones advice tbh I havent read through bar the OP.

I would say get another lens you won't regret it. I shoot both Venus and MP-E but have had Tamron 90mm/Sigma 105mm. MPE doesn't get as much use as it should or deserves but the Venus is hard to drag out of my hands.

2-5x mag can be very specialised but I use 2 X 270ex ii with it :).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Bryn :)

I am going to try a raynox with a zoom lens and see how I go with that...
 
Right - a semi scientific test this time as I had a cooperative bug in my flat this afternoon! :)

First the Raynox on my Tammy 16-300 (best of about 20 attempts)


Tamron 16-300 with Raynox 150 by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Next the same shot with the MPE - ironically I only got 1 attempt as the short working distance frightened off the fly...


MPE-65 by Mike Smith, on Flickr

So a good effort by the superzoom + Raynox combination but really a clear win for the MPE (as you would expect I guess).

Not sure where this leaves me now - any (sensible!) suggestions welcome...
 
dibbly dobbler said:
So a good effort by the superzoom + Raynox combination but really a clear win for the MPE (as you would expect I guess).
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I expected when I compared achromats with the MPE-65 (and the Canon 100L Macro and Sigma 105 Macro) , but not what I found, to my surprise. On the face of it, you have a very different result here - the generally expected result. I wonder why?

Looking at the 2048 wide versions these look very different. The Raynox version looks very "rough" - the hairs on its back look fine and delicate in the MPE version but thick and crude in the Raynox version. Also, the out of focus areas look very different - smooth in the MPE version but with a rough texture in the Raynox version. It's a similar look to what I get with excessive cropping. (They are both ISO 100, so ISO isn't an issue here.) The Raynox version also looks overall much darker with much more (and again, rather crude) contrast.

The amount of DOF is a bit confusing too. The MPE version was f/14, which means an effective aperture of at least f/28 (since the minimum magnification is 1;1 with the MPE-65), and more than that unless you were at absolutely minimum magnification. The Raynox version was f/16, which is also the effective aperture. Given that, the DOF ought to be greater (at minimum, almost twice as much in fact) in the MPE version, but the Raynox version appears to have wider DOF (it's difficult to be sure about that because of the difference in angle of the shots). This makes me think of a possible DOF enhancement from cropping of the Raynox version.

Was there any cropping? Any other difference in post processing? Were there any differences in illumination or camera settings at capture time?

Another variable is the lens of course. As it happens I have just been testing a friend's (possibly faulty) superzoom on my 70D, a Sigma 18-300. I found that it was very soft at the long end compared to my 55-250 STM. I wonder if something of that sort might be playing into this (i.e. perhaps it is the zoom lens rather than the Raynox which is the main issue). That said, you were about in the middle of the zoom range rather than at an extreme, where I would have expected any lens shortcomings to be most evident. The fact you were in the middle of the zoom range also suggests, given the way I work at least, that you were filling the frame as much as you wanted and so may not have needed to do any more cropping, if any at all, than you did with the MPE.

dibbly dobbler said:
Not sure where this leaves me now - any (sensible!) suggestions welcome...
Click to expand...

Given my own experience, I wouldn't regard this single result as conclusive. I know it is the "expected" result, but it doesn't tally with my fairly extensive experiments, and I would be inclined to try again before abandoning the Raynox.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Well, that's what I expected when I compared achromats with the MPE-65 (and the Canon 100L Macro and Sigma 105 Macro) , but not what I found, to my surprise. On the face of it, you have a very different result here - the generally expected result. I wonder why?

Looking at the 2048 wide versions these look very different. The Raynox version looks very "rough" - the hairs on its back look fine and delicate in the MPE version but thick and crude in the Raynox version. Also, the out of focus areas look very different - smooth in the MPE version but with a rough texture in the Raynox version. It's a similar look to what I get with excessive cropping. (They are both ISO 100, so ISO isn't an issue here.) The Raynox version also looks overall much darker with much more (and again, rather crude) contrast.

The amount of DOF is a bit confusing too. The MPE version was f/14, which means an effective aperture of at least f/28 (since the minimum magnification is 1;1 with the MPE-65), and more than that unless you were at absolutely minimum magnification. The Raynox version was f/16, which is also the effective aperture. Given that, the DOF ought to be greater (at minimum, almost twice as much in fact) in the MPE version, but the Raynox version appears to have wider DOF (it's difficult to be sure about that because of the difference in angle of the shots). This makes me think of a possible DOF enhancement from cropping of the Raynox version.

Was there any cropping? Any other difference in post processing? Were there any differences in illumination or camera settings at capture time?

Another variable is the lens of course. As it happens I have just been testing a friend's (possibly faulty) superzoom on my 70D, a Sigma 18-300. I found that it was very soft at the long end compared to my 55-250 STM. I wonder if something of that sort might be playing into this (i.e. perhaps it is the zoom lens rather than the Raynox which is the main issue). That said, you were about in the middle of the zoom range rather than at an extreme, where I would have expected any lens shortcomings to be most evident. The fact you were in the middle of the zoom range also suggests, given the way I work at least, that you were filling the frame as much as you wanted and so may not have needed to do any more cropping, if any at all, than you did with the MPE.



Given my own experience, I wouldn't regard this single result as conclusive. I know it is the "expected" result, but it doesn't tally with my fairly extensive experiments, and I would be inclined to try again before abandoning the Raynox.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the advice - it's appreciated :)

The Raynox shot was a bit underexposed and is fairly heavily cropped as you have spotted - the MPE shot was slightly over exposed and only quite lightly cropped. They were both lit by my Mt24-ex with custom diffusers (I tried the Tamron + Raynox shots with on camera flash with and without (very basic) diffusion but the results were not very satisfactory).

I suspect you are right about the cause - the Tamron is great at what it does (ie cover a huge zoom range) but of course image quality is not going to be top notch (it's not terrible either but this kind of thing probably shows it at its worst).

Hmm - so I'm not quite sure where this leaves me! I could buy another lens - eg a 100mm but I have had at least 3 in the past and never got the use from any of them so I am reluctant to go round that loop again...

Probably best just to sit on it for a while rather than rush into buying anything else.
 
ChrisA said:
Keep trying with the Raynox as you got it. Have you another lens ( prime to try it with). Personally if the back off is what you want / further working distance then a dedicate macro lens 90mm up is going to be easier and most likely better in the long run.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Chris. I don't have anything else obvious to try it with (maybe a 24-105 with a step down ring to mount it on? Not sure if that would work but the image quality would surely be better... hmm...)

A 90 or 100 prime is the obvious answer but I have gone down this route before and they ended up gathering dust!

Or the Venus 60mm is another answer...
 
dibbly dobbler said:
The Raynox shot ...is fairly heavily cropped ... the MPE shot ... only quite lightly cropped.
Click to expand...

Ah. I think that means it isn't a good comparison to base any decisions on. I would try some comparisons where you crop both versions a similar amount (or not at all). You don't have to find a cooperative insect btw - you can (see my journey thread for example!) do comparisons with static subjects, either outdoors or (I don't know what it is like where you are at the moment but it is very breezy here today!) indoors. With similar (or no) cropping, you will be comparing like with like.

There is an issue of what magnification to use so as to be able to do similar (or no) crops. I think that probably means using the MPE at minimum or near minimum magnification of 1:1. With the Raynox 150 on the 16-300 at full zoom you may find you can get to or perhaps a little beyond 1:1. (I can go to 1.2:1 with the Raynox 150 on my 55-250 at 250mm on my 70D.) This is obviously only the beginning of the magnifications you can get with the MPE-65, but it seems from your original post that 1:1 is a maximum magnification that you gravitate to at the moment, and it is of course as as you can get with most macro lenses anyway (all except the MPE-65 and Venus I think), and so is a reasonable starting point to see whether you can get your camera, 16-300 and Raynox 150 to give you acceptable results. If they can, you can think about stronger achromats to get to higher magnifications if you would like to go there.

If the Raynox 150 won't work well for you on your camera and 16-300, then I would try it on the 24-105. (Incidentally, what is the filter thread on the 24-105? The spring-loaded clip that comes with the Raynox 150 will I think handle up to 67mm.) If that works better, but doesn't give you enough magnification you can think about using a more powerful achromat such as the Raynox 250. If it doesn't work well than you'll need to think about either trying again with a 90/100/105 macro lens or some other approach such as extension tubes.

What were the issues that turned you off 90/100/105 type macro lenses? I'm wondering if it was the faffing around issue like with the MPE-65, or other things?

With the MPE-65, or any of the 1:1 lenses, have you had any help from people like those here who do use these sort of lens with great success? If not, another go with a 90/100/105, or even the MPE-65, and getting some feedback from people here on the practicalities, might be worth trying. Sometimes there are practical tips and tricks which can make the seemingly impossible (or too awkward/bothersome/annoying/slow/unenjoyable to bother with) quite doable.

If none of that works, you could try extension tubes, but I suspect the faff factor could be quite high with them too. But maybe not. It's a very personal thing as to what works for each of us.

Another factor is practice. I think the faff factor is high for any closeup/macro technique/kit to begin with. It needs repetition to develop the "muscle memory" that makes the actions flow smoothly and quickly, without really thinking about it (like with driving a car). Getting good at closeup/macro work is I think quite difficult for most of us. Of course, as in any other area, there are some people who seem to have an effortless, almost magical touch right from the outset, or after just a few days. But it certainly wasn't that way for me. I almost gave up when I started out because I just couldn't get anything in focus with the Raynox 250, which is what I started with. I think for most of us it takes quite a bit of practice, and some helpful feedback and advice along the way. And it's not just at the beginning, not for me at least. Every time I try a new piece of kit or technique I'm initially convinced that it can't possibly be a good idea, because it is to awkward to do/use. Only with practice can I find out if that really is the case or not.

dibbly dobbler said:
Probably best just to sit on it for a while rather than rush into buying anything else.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rush to buy anything else at the moment. I think there are some more experiments you can try with what you have. And if you are happy to share the details of your experience/experiments here, I'm sure you'll get helpful practical feedback and suggestions.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Ah. I think that means it isn't a good comparison to base any decisions on. I would try some comparisons where you crop both versions a similar amount (or not at all). You don't have to find a cooperative insect btw - you can (see my journey thread for example!) do comparisons with static subjects, either outdoors or (I don't know what it is like where you are at the moment but it is very breezy here today!) indoors. With similar (or no) cropping, you will be comparing like with like.

There is an issue of what magnification to use so as to be able to do similar (or no) crops. I think that probably means using the MPE at minimum or near minimum magnification of 1:1. With the Raynox 150 on the 16-300 at full zoom you may find you can get to or perhaps a little beyond 1:1. (I can go to 1.2:1 with the Raynox 150 on my 55-250 at 250mm on my 70D.) This is obviously only the beginning of the magnifications you can get with the MPE-65, but it seems from your original post that 1:1 is a maximum magnification that you gravitate to at the moment, and it is of course as as you can get with most macro lenses anyway (all except the MPE-65 and Venus I think), and so is a reasonable starting point to see whether you can get your camera, 16-300 and Raynox 150 to give you acceptable results. If they can, you can think about stronger achromats to get to higher magnifications if you would like to go there.

If the Raynox 150 won't work well for you on your camera and 16-300, then I would try it on the 24-105. (Incidentally, what is the filter thread on the 24-105? The spring-loaded clip that comes with the Raynox 150 will I think handle up to 67mm.) If that works better, but doesn't give you enough magnification you can think about using a more powerful achromat such as the Raynox 250. If it doesn't work well than you'll need to think about either trying again with a 90/100/105 macro lens or some other approach such as extension tubes.

What were the issues that turned you off 90/100/105 type macro lenses? I'm wondering if it was the faffing around issue like with the MPE-65, or other things?

With the MPE-65, or any of the 1:1 lenses, have you had any help from people like those here who do use these sort of lens with great success? If not, another go with a 90/100/105, or even the MPE-65, and getting some feedback from people here on the practicalities, might be worth trying. Sometimes there are practical tips and tricks which can make the seemingly impossible (or too awkward/bothersome/annoying/slow/unenjoyable to bother with) quite doable.

If none of that works, you could try extension tubes, but I suspect the faff factor could be quite high with them too. But maybe not. It's a very personal thing as to what works for each of us.

Another factor is practice. I think the faff factor is high for any closeup/macro technique/kit to begin with. It needs repetition to develop the "muscle memory" that makes the actions flow smoothly and quickly, without really thinking about it (like with driving a car). Getting good at closeup/macro work is I think quite difficult for most of us. Of course, as in any other area, there are some people who seem to have an effortless, almost magical touch right from the outset, or after just a few days. But it certainly wasn't that way for me. I almost gave up when I started out because I just couldn't get anything in focus with the Raynox 250, which is what I started with. I think for most of us it takes quite a bit of practice, and some helpful feedback and advice along the way. And it's not just at the beginning, not for me at least. Every time I try a new piece of kit or technique I'm initially convinced that it can't possibly be a good idea, because it is to awkward to do/use. Only with practice can I find out if that really is the case or not.



I wouldn't rush to buy anything else at the moment. I think there are some more experiments you can try with what you have. And if you are happy to share the details of your experience/experiments here, I'm sure you'll get helpful practical feedback and suggestions.
Click to expand...

Thanks once again for your patience!

Point taken about the unequal comparison above - I'll try some more shots but I did take lots of others with the Tamron and Raynox with a variety of different focal lengths etc and none of them were leaping out as being very sharp. Not the fault of the Raynox I suspect, rather a lack of compatibility with the lens. I'll try a few more anyway.

I gave it a quick go with the 24-105 and it looks promising! I'll need a 77 to 67 step down ring though but just hand holding the Raynox up to it and taking a few scratch shots looked good enough for me to order a step down ring so I can try it properly. I suspect if this doesn't work I'll just stick with the MPE and maybe look at another simpler (and hopefully cheaper!) flash setup rather than buy another prime.

I also take your point about technique and practice! It took me a long time to get the hang of the MPE and ironically the longer working distance may have been part of what I found tricky about the Raynox setup - I will persevere though either with the Tamron or the 24-105.

More to come in due course ... :)
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks once again for your patience!

Point taken about the unequal comparison above - I'll try some more shots but I did take lots of others with the Tamron and Raynox with a variety of different focal lengths etc and none of them were leaping out as being very sharp. Not the fault of the Raynox I suspect, rather a lack of compatibility with the lens. I'll try a few more anyway.

I gave it a quick go with the 24-105 and it looks promising! I'll need a 77 to 67 step down ring though but just hand holding the Raynox up to it and taking a few scratch shots looked good enough for me to order a step down ring so I can try it properly. I suspect if this doesn't work I'll just stick with the MPE and maybe look at another simpler (and hopefully cheaper!) flash setup rather than buy another prime.

I also take your point about technique and practice! It took me a long time to get the hang of the MPE and ironically the longer working distance may have been part of what I found tricky about the Raynox setup - I will persevere though either with the Tamron or the 24-105.
Click to expand...

Thinking about the sharpness, or lack of it, another thought comes to mind about using achromats like the Raynox 150 effectively. Forgive me if you already know all this, but ...

A critical issue with achromats is the distance to the subject. With the Raynox 150 on my 55-250 on my 70D, autofocus will only lock on with the front of the Raynox between about 160mm and 210mm from the subject. I believe this means that even if I am using manual focusing I can only get a properly sharp image within this range. This "sharp" range is very similar with the Raynox 150 on my FZ200 and I suspect will be quite similar whatever the camera, lens and focal length (and hence magnification) you use. It does vary between achromats. The sharp range gets smaller as achromats get more powerful, and this makes them more difficult to use. On the other hand, the sharp range is very large for the not very powerful Canon 500D, which is very easy to use.

One issue is that if you are using a lens which extends and contracts as you change focal length, then you may be in the sharp range but then change the focal length so as to change the magnification and the change in length of the lens can take you out of the sharp range.

If you are focusing using the focus ring on the camera it is possible to be in the situation where you are outside the sharp range but you use the focus ring to get the sharpest image you can and then take a photo. It may be the sharpest you can get it, but it won't be as sharp as it could be if you were inside the sharp range. Distinctly soft images are possible in this scenario.

I use autofocus most of the time, and you would think this problem wouldn't arise, but I've never been entirely convinced about that. I suspect that it is possible to be towards one or other end of the sharp range, where autofocus will lock on but you still won't have a properly sharp image. I have never done experiments to pin this down (don't know why; I suppose I should) but my feeling is that it does occur and is more of a problem with weaker achromats, like the Raynox 150 and the Canon 500D, and that the problem seems to arise at the further end of the range rather than the nearer end. When using autofocus I have a strong tendency to check I can get autofocus to lock on and then move in, repeating as necessary until it won't lock on any more, and then move out a tad. (Or I may take a shot or three immediately I can get focus lock, in case the subject moves away, and then do the distance check/adjustment and carry on taking photos.)

I believe (without any proof though) that if you are using "rocking focus" (which is what I use for manual focus), this problem won't, in fact can't, arise.

dibbly dobbler said:
More to come in due course ... :)
Click to expand...

I'll look forward to that. :)
 
Another effort with the Tamron + Raynox - actually looks pretty good (no crop this time and just a little bit of editing and sharpening)



Raynox + Tamron 16-300 Test Shot by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Interesting point about the technique used to get the sharpest image - what I did for the insect shots was to move in slowly until the autofocus was able to lock then take the shot from there so maybe I was not properly into the sharp zone. More experimentation needed!
 
GardenersHelper said:
Great and rapid progress Mike. Sharpness looks good.

Looking at the vignetting I'm wondering if you were hold the Raynox up to the lens, or do you have the step ring now?
Click to expand...

Thanks - the flower shot was still with the Tamron 16-300 + Raynox (rather than Canon 24-105 + Raynox) so it was mounted normally (Tamron has 67mm filter size). It was shot at 100mm - longer focal lengths were clear of vignetting but perhaps contributed to the lack of sharp bug shots which were generally longer to try and get a bit more magnification. Need to try a few more combinations and see how I go :)
 
Last edited:
Moving from a sigma 105 to the mpe65 was great for me, but I've begun to find that I miss being able to fit the larger subjects in frame such as butterflies etc. So I'm debating getting another macro lens for that reason.
 
mattd85 said:
Moving from a sigma 105 to the mpe65 was great for me, but I've begun to find that I miss being able to fit the larger subjects in frame such as butterflies etc. So I'm debating getting another macro lens for that reason.
Click to expand...
Thanks Matt - loving your work lately. The MPE does produce great images but it is limited and something of a faff to use to say the least! I still have no clear idea what to do next but first off I need to see if I can get the Raynox working...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top