iris 2 IMG_1672aaw

Gregory,

I like this beautiful  scene.

I understand the need for DOF , and perhaps the "soft " look to the image, but your lens has not provided the definition that it  is capable of doing at F/32.

I own the same setup, and the 100mm Canon macro comes to life at F/4 to F/8.

Regards, Mike

Mike,

Thanks for your comment. I wonder if you looked at the large version? I try to stay away from "soft" images - my intent usually is to show the beauty and detail one can normally not see with the naked eye. If I were to have used f4 or 8 with a bloom this size and with its depth (probably a good 2 inches from closest to furthest point o rpetal) there would be very little in focus. I have experimented with many different combinations of f and light and time. I find and I know many would disagree, that the f 32 gives me the best hope of getting maximum dof as long as I use a long shutter (c.8 secs) and everything is very steady.

With all your lenses, have you found what would be the best walk around lens for the 5d2 with maximum range. I'm using a tamron 28-300 which gives good range, but I'm not always thrilled about the quality of the shots. From what I've read, canon doesn't really offer anything stellar in this category. Seems the 70-200 is a good lens, but has limited range and I don't want to have to change lenses constantly.

Anybody else have an idea?

Thanks

Greg

Hi Greg, Yes I did look at the image enlarged. I fully understand the depth that you wanted to get and it did work. The use of F/32, for your goal, has merit.

I use the same lens often to image flowers, but I use the opposite settings for my goals. I do not use a tripod and often my subject is wavering around in the wind. I also want the maximum definition at my point of interest, and any further "depth" is not a concern for what I am out to accomplish.

I do appreciate the other directions taken for  close range imaging.

As for Canon lens, the 70-200 (both the F/4 and F/2.8 are a higher quality lens. To get that extended range, use the matching 1.4X extender and the quality will still remain at a level,  better than what you have now (not that your lens is not good, it is all relative). The matching 2X works, but better with the F/2.8 version.

A good rule of thumb for any zoom lens is that the greater the range of the zoom ratio, the less likely it will have a high performance capability. There are just too many issues in designing complex, multi-element systems that have a 10:1 + range. I usually like to break up the range to 2:1 up to 5:1 maximum. in any of my zooms that I employ.

Best Regards,  Mike

Not that this is a forum for such, but I'm surprised Mike, that you even noticed I answered you. Thanks for your considered response. I actually have a 2x extender, but have only tried it with the 100-400 (canon) and while it works, the auto focus does not, and images seem to be "softer" when I don't want them to be. I don't know how it would be with the new 70-200 ( I know, I could find out..)

plus, that is a big expense. It would be used for the occasions where we attend some kind of public event or for landscapes. Anyway, thanks for your time - it's always interesting to read your commentaries. Very impressed with your lens collection- I guess some people by stocks...

Also, respect your goal to catch a certain look of flowers and outside it is a bear to do anything, this is why I gave up mostly doing that and concentrate on working in a controlled environment. I recently got a canon mp-e 65 and having a rough time getting the clarity i want. Any words of wisdom?

Thanks again

Greg