# Macro insects - help needed



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

I have recently been working on my macro skills and would like some advice on my technique and ideas  for developing my skills further - so any advice is very welcome.

Photos:
Taken with canon 400D+speedlite 580M2 (without diffuser) + sigma 150mm f2.8 macro + sigma 2* teleconverter

Methodology:
All hand held results, though often I am not standing but crouching on the floor - so some added stability there. I set the lens to 1:1 macro and manual focusing so it stays there and then go hunting - so far I have found it very hard/impossible to get a full insect into 1:1 macro focusing and have considered moving out to 1:2 macro and further to get more insect into a shot - unless others can tell me that one can get the average insect into 1:1 macro. I also tend to shoot either in the high parts of the day (lots of bright light out then) or closer to evenings, but would move to morning shooting more if I could get out of bed earlier  - for those slower morning insects.






f13, ISO 100, 1/100sec
larger:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/3229410001_d7791d7232_o.jpg





f13, ISO 400, 1/40sec
larger:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/3235230008_1f47720af2_o.jpg

So far these two shots have been my apex results that I have managed to get.

Any advice, comments and crits are welcome - thank you


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

Very nice macros, but I tend to prefer them with deeper DOF.  You might also consider adding a diffuser -- look at Daan's bug images with his lumiquest softbox.

Do you really need the 2X TC with that lens?  I have a 100mm macro and have never tried it with the TC.


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

Thanks 
I like the TC for the softness it helps add in the background (though I have a feeling I am losing my depth of field though!) - I got very used to my 70-300mm macros 300mm soft 
As for the lumiquest its definatly (for the same reasons) something I have consdiered and debated about and am almost certain to go for one - once I have cash


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

The problem with a TC is that it might also add softness where you don't want it (although that doesn't seem to be a problem with these images).  You might try side-side comparisons with it and without it (maybe on a flower -- they keep still).  I have the Sigma 1.4X and the 2X, but I only use them if I really feel I need them (and have never tried them on a macro).

I bought a lumiquest last week, but haven't had a chance to try it yet.

Do you know what f-stop you shot these at?


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

f13 - I found that a wider aperture was rapidly losing me working light (and also on the go flexability) and I don't really want to boost ISO much as I find it adds a lot of noise quite rapidly to macro work.
I think if I had a closer flash (one of those lens mounted ones) I would be able to take the aperture wider - and I might try again with f16 and see what I can get
f16 and ISO 200 should not be too bad


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

Well I think @ f13, your DOF without the TC would have been fine (or it would have been with my 100mm macro, anyway).  Remember you also lose 2 stops of light with that 2X TC and light is your friend.  As you push the lens to it's smallest aperture you will lose sharpness too.


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

true - I hope to get out and get my 1.4TC picked up at some point - that might prove to be more of a happy meduim to work with - though granted with 150mm at normal I do have a good working distance to start with


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

I shoot all my macros with my Canon 100mm f2.8 and no TC and have found that I am able to get close enough (and my off-camera 430EX gives me enough light).  Now if you don't want to breathe down the bug's throat, that's another story 

This guy was done before I bought my 430EX with on-camera flash fill.

BTW I bought both my 2X and my 1.4x on ebay for very good prices in mint condition -- there are always some listed.


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

I think its the fact that I have been doing this for only 2 weeks so far that I am reluctant to sacrifce my working distance as I do lack the general experince of stalking insects 

and I think the MPE-65 lets you do that breathing thing


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

Overread said:


> I think its the fact that I have been doing this for only 2 weeks so far that I am reluctant to sacrifce my working distance as I do lack the general experince of stalking insects
> 
> and I think the MPE-65 lets you do that breathing thing



Breathing?  Oh ... I forgot ... 

What's an MPE-65?


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

icassell said:


> What's an MPE-65?



NM -- that's the cool dedicated macro .... maybe some day 

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

The only macro that can go to 5 times lifsize!
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro.../Macro_Lenses/MP_E65mm_f2515x_Macro/index.asp
and also apparently the hardest lens to use - a fully dedicated macro lens (no af and it won't do anything but macro).

I agree with you on the someday


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

Overread said:


> The only macro that can go to 5 times lifsize!



Well, I believe you can put your sigma or my canon on a bellows and get the 5X


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2008)

true - but that is with accessories - the mpe is 5times alone (just think of how close you could get with one with a bellows - 10 times??


----------



## icassell (Aug 1, 2008)

Overread said:


> true - but that is with accessories - the mpe is 5times alone (just think of how close you could get with one with a bellows - 10 times??



What does a fly's bellybutton look like?


----------



## Kyuss (Aug 1, 2008)

Great pictures. I have been working on my Macros as well and looking at the first fly pic, it seems like that at f13 wo/teleconverter, your images would have had a lot more DOF. 

I have a 90mm and I couldn't even imagine my DOF being any shallower than it is. Just need more light to get closer. Thats my next purchase, is a flash.


----------



## tpe (Aug 2, 2008)

There are also a couple of other reasons not to use a tc, if you are working at f13 on the camera then your effective f stop becomes f 26, and because you have doubled the focal length of your lens the dof does not increas from the original lens with no tc at f 13. So you have half the light that makes the chance of shake go up, you have double the f stop which makes the chance of diffraction go up which definatly a problem at everything over about f 16 on your lens (you do have the dedicated macro ?). So avoid using the tc when possile, just move in closer. Your lighting looks pretty good, your flash has not produced nasty white areas, perhaps without the tc the closeness will make itworse, in which case use a diffuser on it (even a plastic bag held over with a rubber band will help. If you want to keep the background oof you will also get much betterbokeh just by reducing the apperture size. That said you are using exactly the right method, put the camera on MF, the lens at 1:2 or 1:1 and move backwards and forwards untill you get the eye in focus is great. What you might want to do is try a larger apperture, f8 or 11 or even f 5.6 at 1:2 and then look for some subjects with light distant backgrounds and try that to get the effect you want.

tim


----------



## Overread (Aug 2, 2008)

Thank you for the help = I think its time I bit the bullet and shot macro without 300mms - I will post back with what I get as results. 
I think I will still use the TC for macro work, just that I will religate it to mostly working with photo stacking trips - where a fine depth of field won't be a limitation.
Now can some one send the sun to Engand for me please


----------

