Focus Issue

[dcphotography]

I need to refresh before answering :)

[jerry_schuler]

Matt, Another thought I just had with your demo. It also shows the limitations of the the kit lenses. We've all seen those photos using the expensive Macro lenses. We can look the sample photos and some may decide to spend the money for those better lenses. Rather than trying to push the kit lenses beyond their capablity. Again, I appreciate the effort and honesty you put into your demostration.

[jerry_schuler]

...or a Coolpix.

[Matt Laur]

Well, I sure HOPE that nobody is looking at my slap-dash examples above as a formal gauge of what one can do with the kit lenses. I was attempting to make a point about the value of goofing around with light and composition, rather than stress-testing a kit lens, hand-held, in a shot to which I'd given essentially no advance thought. There are obviously gazillions of pixel-peeping pages out there that will compare that same 18-70, at the same distances, focal lengths and apertures to lenses X, Y, and Z, ad nauseum. What such comparisons can't do is very well take into account the creativity or circumstances of each prospective photographer.

 

The intersection of budget, experience, technical hair-splitting, intended use, likely care in handling over the life of the equipment, and so on, ALL add up to a lens decision. I maintain that most people (myself included) can benefit from better equipment, but can generally benefit far more better technique and a bit of non-boring thinking.

 

I can't stand the ol' "it's not the equiment, it's the photographer" platitude (since, sometimes the photographer without certain equipment can't do certain things - especially when it comes to sports, specialized studio work and so on). But of course there's a strong element of truth in that old saw. So many images that might get 10% better with a better lens or less noisy sensor would be 50% better with a small change in the lighting, or a photographer than bothered walking around a little more or keeping a short step ladder in the car.

 

Those changes in approach are SO much more important than the quality of the equipment for most normal, exploratory, learning-curve work.

[jerry_schuler]

Matt, I have what suggestion that would be a waste of your time and unnecessary, but I'm curious so I'll ask. So do not feel compelled, I probably would not waste my time with it myself.

 

It would be educational to see what you could produce with the same shot using the very best equipment you have available to you.

 

I'm sure you honestly do it, and report the equipment and the cost.

 

You could save the results for macro tutorial for people with questions on macros as equipment.

[marypar4]

WOW..I guess this issue struck a cord..which I am please about..as I am the one to benefit from this lively and very informative discussion. I actually have a 18-70 and a 50. mm lens 1.8. I ofcourse realize the flower was just a test shot..not composed ..as an example of blurry shot. I have learned much and will work on DOF and experiment with this and sometime in the near future maybe I will have a picture worthy of a post! Thanks to all for the great advice and for taking time to help. I had looked into buying a dedicated marco lens but thought I would give my 70-300 vr lens a shot first to see if I could get a good result. I have a Canon Pro One(with a fixed lens) with a macro capability on it..it's ok and i have taken some spectacular pictures at times with that camera but just love the "big" camera feel so tend to use the D80 more. I looked at a 28- 105? used lens with a macro switch on it..the camera shop says is great..hmmm..not so sure about that? ANy ideas on that lens..it was $220. They don't make the lens any more. I realize the camera equipment can make a big difference..BUT ..my sister .who has no photgraphic skills..takes the most beautiful pictures..with a camera I bought her for christmas..a canon 540..I might mention..she is a professional artist! So you put a point and shot in the hands of an artist and some amazing things happen. I realize there are some gearheads out there who have to have the best equipment and God Bless..they keep the econmony going in the right directions..and allow the rest of us to buy used equipment as a fraction of the cost....so let us not discourge them..LOL! If I had unlimited resources..my wish list would be a D3..with some very "big glass" to go along with it but that is for another lifetime. I am signed up for a great course in the fall at my local community college so I am hoping to learn much..in the meantime I will struggle along and keep reading and experimenting.

[jerry_schuler]

Here's some Links to some sample close ups I made.

I left them in the 10mbit size you can zoom in one them.

The lion is 7 inches tall.

 

1) Done on my D60 with the 18-55mm lens F8 (kit lens)

 

2) Done on my D60 with the Micro Nikkor 55mm 2.8 AIS F8 (20+ year Old cost me about $150.00)

 

3) Done on my P5000 Coolpix. F5.6 (the best of them all) Note: the depth of field.

 

My lighting was just 2 Lamps with compact floresent lights.

Nothing really professional about any of this.

 

These are my best shots. Most could probley do better.

I'm waiting for Matt's best shots.

 

http://www.jerryschuler.com/photos2/LionD6018_55mmf8.JPG

 

http://www.jerryschuler.com/photos2/LionD60MicroNikorf8.JPG

 

http://www.jerryschuler.com/photos2/LionP5000f5.JPG

 

Mary, For some unknown reason, all the threads I get involved in seem to be lively.

[Matt Laur]

You're just a provocateur, Jerry! I'll probably give a dabble in the morning, but right now it's time to reset the meat computer. It's been a 20-hour day.

[Matt Laur]

Well, I didn't really have time to do this justice, but I did have time to throw four different lenses on the camera. The wind was blowing, so long, dangly, vine-ish flower are nigh on impossible to do right. Never the less, here are some converstaional examples.

 

What are these images? These are NOT four "identical" shots attempting to show the differences between each lens as if it were a race between them. These are NOT images meant to show the best that each lens can do, or to show the best technique, composition, or artfulness that one could muster with more time to do it. Rather, these are an attempt to show some of the character of each lens in this particular situation, and to compare it roughly, from the gut, to the images a bit farther up in this thread (taken with the 18-70 kit lens). These are shots that most anyone might walk up to a flower and shoot, more or less on the fly. I've just added some light control to help make it more predictable for me, since the wind was blowing the overhead tree branches in and out of the sunlight.

 

First, a cheesy labeled snap-shot to provide a little context. Strobes are NOT firing in this setting shot. Note that I brought out two Nikon speedlights to help fill shadows. The SB800 is on the lower table, pointing into the large gold-tone reflector. This is to provide some soft fill light. The SB600, sitting up on the fence, is banking off of a small white reflector, to give a little rim lighiting.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

First, a shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM. This is a "normal" focal length prime lens. It's NOT meant to be a macro lens, but it's actually quite sharp. You just can't get right up close. It's more of a people and landscape lens. Still, a lot of people have one (I like it a lot, but it's not what I'd choose for this sort of thing).<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Then, for a real change of pace, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR. This is my go-to sports lens. Again, not something I'd choose for this purpose. My main reason for doing it was to show how shallow the depth of field is, even at f/9, when you're at 200mm (from about 6 feet away, in this case).<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Then, something a little more appropriate for the job. Nikon's 60mm Micro 2.8. This is NOT the newer AFS version. Just the old screw-drive focus version they made forever. It's at f/10, but we're so close that we still wind up with very shallow DoF.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

And lastly, the very humble Nikon 50/1.8. Available for less than the cost of four fairly good delivery pizzas. Shown here at f/4.5 to try to balance the DoF on the flowers with a desire to partially obscure the background.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

And you know what? I actually <i>like</i> the second shot done with the kit lens (on the sold grey background) the

most. It has the most interest to me, visually. Just sayin'.

<br><br>

And before anybody gets on my case... no, I didn't make any attempt to make the light perfectly consistent from

shot to shot, or even feel obliged to shoot the same individual flowers from lens to lens. This is utterly, completely

subjective and seat-of-the-pants qualitative. There are plenty of places to go see the math and particulars about all of

those lenses. Do I have a real point here? Yes:

<br><br>

The kit lenses are a great way to learn and produce interesting images - many of them real keepers. The modestly

priced 50/1.8 can produce stellar results if you don't need to be three inches from your subject. OK, that's it for me.

Back to pictures of dogs and whatnot.

[marypar4]

As I suspected Matt..you are truly a very good photographer..to make a crazy analogy..as Randy Jackson from

American Idol says.."you could sing the phone book and make it sound good or in your case ..shoot with a $100

lens and make a beautiful image! LOL ...I am going to get out that 50 mm lens and see what I can do with it!

mary

[jerry_schuler]

Matt, this is an excellent job. Best ever I've personally seen on the net of showing macro photography!!!

We get to see the comparison of the lenses and the equipment used.

I've only seen before the final photo and note of which lens was used. But never a comparison of several lenses at once.

 

Lighting is something I need to start dealing with. My own architect lamps and compact florescent bulbs provide enough like for the camera to click. But thatﾒs where my lighting ability ends.

 

Personally, I like the 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 30mm/1.4 the best. The perspective on the 2d Kit lens shot is too different than the others for me to include in my evaluation. This is just my personal (layman) opinion and not based on any sort professional knowledge.

 

Again I know you spent a lot of time and effort with these shots. I can speak for others but I think they and myself owe you something for the work you put in here. Thank you.

 

ps. I'm still (even more) a believer in Coolpixs for macro shots.

[marypar4]

Now I am excited..just went out before dark..took a very quick picture..cropped but no other manipulation..just a leaf to show what a fantastic lens this little 50 1.8 is..very sharp and certainly doable as a macro as Matt showed us with his demo. I would have to say before going out and buying a dedicated macro..try this lens to start. I am also thrilled that my D80 is not defective..glad to say its the shooter..not the gun!<div></div>

[jerry_schuler]

Matt,

It sure sounds like you solved Mary's dilemma. I'm sure a lot of other peopleﾒs too. This post is going down it history as a true educational experience. You may even what to create a separate web page for this but edit out some of the more "lively" dialogue.

[Matt Laur]

Mary: delightful! That's a very pleasant image. Sometimes the shots you fuss over the least are the ones that produce the nicest results. You're going to enjoy finding the sweet spots offered up by that 50mm lens. There's a reason it's so often praised in this context. Get to know its limitations, and you'll start to see that subjects well suited to it will jump right out at you.

 

Jerry: Ah, the world's full of demos like that! If I were to actually do up a tutorial geared towards a more permanent display, I'd probably tackle it a bit differently. I think the real lesson here is that this forum - and the cultural tone that Photo.net cultivates and seeks to maintain - is unlike any other spot on the web. This is why you see people here, at every level of experience and expertise, who've been here for many years.

[jerry_schuler]

Matt, They're not as good as yours.

[marypar4]

Truly Jerry the pic of the leaf was just a demo to illustrate the sharpness of that little 50 1.8 The picture is not the subject in this discussion..its the focus problems ..and how to get a nice focus. Some of the problems I had have been resolved..as well... roses do not have a lot of definition as do leaves..thus the example. Thanks again Matt.<div></div>