500mm 5.6 PF + Extension Tubes

Rather than hijack another thread, I thought I'd open a new one!

Using a 500mm PF for bug chasing might seem a bit crazy, but for the very skittish beasts a long working distance helps.

First image is Minimum focus distance...

Second is Minimum Focus distance + 62mm of tubes (36mm + 26mm)

Third is Maximum Focus Distance + 62mm of tubes (36mm + 26mm)

Shot 2 has a pair of Commlite Fully Auto Tubes for Nikon Z Mount @ ~ £60.

Obviously you loose infinity on shot 3, but there's still quite a good 'far' focus.

NB. Flower is about 2" or 52mm across.

Even without the extension tube, many 500mm lenses (especially catadioptric) are surprisingly close focus.

Here is a Quantaray 500mm f/8 catadioptric (a very so-so lens) with no tubes or other assists:

Here is a Quantaray 500mm f/8 catadioptric

How big's the flutterby? It looks like one of the swallowtails, but...?

I agree with all of the above. I use my Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf for chasing butterflies and bugs both with and without extension tubes. The tube I use the most is a Kenko AF tube, 20mm, Nikon F mount. I also use my 300mm f4 pf lens for the same thing, both with and without the same ext tube and sometimes with the 36mm tube.

Never add a second tube as separation could occur with the lens or camera hitting the ground. These third party tubes are not that strong. With carful use, this issue can be avoided.

How big's the flutterby?

It's the yellow version of the Tiger Swallowtail

The eastern tiger swallowtail is a large species with a wingspread range of 7.9 to 14.0 cm (approx. 3.12 to 5.5 inches)

On my 300mm F4 i like to use a TC instead of tubes, works great too...

sadly it is still to cold here for butterflies and the like ..

Here's a dragonfly with the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8

Here's a dragonfly with the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8

You either like donuts or you don't! :D

I know you're "funnin" - and so was I when I posted the dragonfly.....o_O

but I am bemused by why some people actually seem to hate donut highlights I neither like or don't like them, I simply accept that it is an optical consequence of a particular lens design. Just another form of "bokeh", so to speak. Can anyone name any lens design that produces the same effects as a human eye? And why would we want to?

No one would accuse the Reflex-Nikkor of naturalism!

Would we blame the universe for gravitational lensing, after all? Yet the results are not "natural" or pretty by pictorialist standards, anyhow.

Gravitational Lensing

I know you're "funnin" - and so was I when I posted the dragonfly.....o_O

"Donuts are verrry serious bussiness, ask any police officer, they will confirm this!

;):cool:

Most people simply prefer soft out-of-focus areas (calming them down, relative to the subject) instead of hyper-busy out-of-focus areas with features that do not arise from the subject but an artificial effect of the lens, making them particularly distracting. Conventional refractive lenses give less detail to areas that are not the primary subject in the image is usually preferable as it allows the viewer to concentrate on the subject that is in focus.

If someone likes ring bokeh that's perfectly fine but I am guessing it won't gain much popularity.

If someone likes ring bokeh that's perfectly fine but I am guessing it won't gain much popularity.

Who said it would?

It was the intensity of the emotions about it that puzzled and puzzles me.

Who said it would?

 

It was the intensity of the emotions about it that puzzled and puzzles me.

Because it's the adverse result of something highly desirable (a very compact supertele). People want uncompromised goodness and hate that they have to choose between light weight and smooth bokeh.

PF lenses aren't quite as bad in terms of bokeh but they aren't the nicest in this respect, either.

You either like donuts or you don't! :D

It was the intensity of the emotions about it that puzzled and puzzles me.

If those were my intense emotions, I must be doing something wrong....:)

Carpe Donut......:rolleyes:

I just captured this image a couple of hours ago.

Z9?

If there are bright highlights in the background, it can look somewhat ugly in an image captured by the 500mm PF. Otherwise, I think it is mostly fine. I just captured this image a couple of hours ago. Normally I would crop tighter and place the bird on the left side, but here I am including more background areas on purpose.

If those were my intense emotions, I must be doing something wrong...

But some may find this background distracting. Both images with 500mm PF on the Z9. Not sure how a conventional, non PF will do in this exact situation.

You're so vain :rolleyes:

Ha, you just uncovered Carly's mystery man! Most people guessed it was Mick Jagger, Warren Beatty... ;):D:eek:

:rolleyes:

I especially like the bit here she seems to keep singing whilst drinking her coffee...:D

.. and who doesn't like a Dachshund? Always was an unusual ending to a song! :)

Carly Simon Admits ‘You’re So Vain’ Is About Warren Beatty | Billboard – Billboard

I just dusted off my old Sigma 600mm f8 Cat lens and popped it on my Z6ii. With no bright highlights in the background, ie no donuts, the rest is pretty OK. No-where near the 500mm PF for contrast or sharpness but OK.

Interestingly focusing in average light is now way easier with Focus Peaking. Wasn't sure it would work with such a slow lens.

500mm PF on the Z9

Bird Tracking AF? Can the Z9's AF follow it around the frame as long as you keep it in the frame?

Carly Simon Admits ‘You’re So Vain’ Is About Warren Beatty | Billboard – Billboard

So it's not you Mike? :D

I am a huge Carly fan, I actually read her captivating memoir - pleasantly surprised by her incredible honesty. Anyhow, she did address this curiosity and Warren Beatty was part of the ingredients of this "vain" guy; and she also included other people in the collage of vain antics.