Who needs Macro - part II

[Uncle Kevriano]

Some butterflies, moths and a damsel from the last few days. Everything shot on the 200 600 and cropped, no need for that crawling around and messing about with manual focussing etc In order of appearance:
Small Heath
Grizzled Skipper
Burnet Companion Moth
Burnet Companion
Dingy Skipper
Mother Shipton Moth
Large Skipper
Azure Blue Damselfly
Common Blue
Wood White (one of our rarest and most declined species, and one I made a special trip for).

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 250

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 250

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 125

 

[WeeMalky]

Stunning detail there Kevin a cracking set

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Cheers Malky.

 

[Paul stuart]

nice set kev well captured

 

[Tim Mayo]

Beautiful shots Kev, the common blue is one of my favourite butterflies. Both the 100-400 and 200-600 make great alternatives to macro lenses, especially when the subjects don't let you get too close. I still love my 90mm macro though.

 

[garuda]

Clearly, I wasted $130 on a Kenko Sony E-mount macro extension tube set!

A stunning set of pics, Kev.... both part I & 2. Amazing res, detail, and sharpness with a 200-600 only. And beautiful wing patterns, so intricate in design.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Clearly, I wasted $130 on a Kenko Sony E-mount macro extension tube set!

A stunning set of pics, Kev.... both part I & 2. Amazing res, detail, and sharpness with a 200-600 only. And beautiful wing patterns, so intricate in design.

Thanks Mike, very much appreciated. Butterflies and Dragonflies really are some of natures finest work.

 

[Paul stuart]

Clearly, I wasted $130 on a Kenko Sony E-mount macro extension tube set!

A stunning set of pics, Kev.... both part I & 2. Amazing res, detail, and sharpness with a 200-600 only. And beautiful wing patterns, so intricate in design.

No you did not, just watched this ,although i dislike the northrups and the click bait ,i still watch from time to time ,i did not notice on my 200-600mm the focus breathing ,if i wanted to photograph insects close up i would use extension tubes on the 200-600mm or get a 100-400mm ,https://youtu.be/h-aYXUoRDkM

 

[garuda]

No you did not, just watched this ,although i dislike the northrups and the click bait ,i still watch from time to time ,i did not notice on my 200-600mm the focus breathing ,if i wanted to photograph insects close up i would use extension tubes on the 200-600mm or get a 100-400mm ,https://youtu.be/h-aYXUoRDkM

I tend to agree on your Northrup assessment (cl bait). But this is an interesting revelation (breathing) that requires some research and verification. I always thought ""breathing" was only an issue w video capture, but not stills. And more complicating is — if the breathing issue is true — why is Sony's digital commentator (exif) telling us the (200-600) lens is stretching out to a FP of 600mil (if in fact it's really 325 according to Tony). The 200-600 dragon shots (both Kev & mine) show the focal length at 600. Wondering if that's Sony's mechanical measure of the lens group position on mechanical continuum or the actual FP distance at the moment of "AF lock."

Although Tony has an fair argument when comparing the actual size of images in his video example (unless another unknown factor is in play here). I ain't smart enough to know these things. More research needed.

And thanks Paul, for reviving my justification for buying extension tubes; I can now use them to test Tony N's theory on breathing.
Before doing research, my gut feeling is that Tony has the term "breathing" mixed up with another phenomenom that happens with extension tubes. Research will tell.

 

[Paul stuart]

I tend to agree on your Northrup assessment (cl bait). But this is an interesting revelation (breathing) that requires some research and verification. I always thought ""breathing" was only an issue w video capture, but not stills. And more complicating is — if the breathing issue is true — why is Sony's digital commentator (exif) telling us the (200-600) lens is stretching out to a FP of 600mil (if in fact it's really 325 according to Tony). The 200-600 dragon shots (both Kev & mine) show the focal length at 600. Wondering if that's Sony's mechanical measure of the lens group position on mechanical continuum or the actual FP distance at the moment of "AF lock."

Although Tony has an fair argument when comparing the actual size of images in his video example (unless another unknown factor is in play here). I ain't smart enough to know these things. More research needed.

And thanks Paul, for reviving my justification for buying extension tubes; I can now use them to test Tony N's theory on breathing.
Before doing research, my gut feeling is that Tony has the term "breathing" mixed up with another phenomenom that happens with extension tubes. Research will tell.

No not just video ,i have seen it explained in other lenses the nikon 70-200mm f2.8 where people have use for portrait but have had a reduced f/l when subject has moved close ie for head shots etc ,although in kevs case probably not relevant in crop mode probably over 6-9 ft away anyway .https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing
Quite annoying my 70-200mm with t/c and 1.4 t/c gives me close to 300mm and focuses down to 1m which will probably give a better macro style image compared to the 200-600mm, 320mm close focusing at 2m ,thinking the 100-400 would be better still and lighter for macro shots .Anyway something to ponder.
For best macro shots extension tubes or a 1:1 macro lens

 

[garuda]

Damn! .... Now I must go out and find all those same dragonflies to shoot again using the 200-600 & extension tube combo. AND I have to pay them all another sitting fee to pose all over again. The world's not fair.

Seriously though, perhaps unnecessary w crop. But I'm still going to test w ETs.

 

[Paul stuart]

Damn! .... Now I must go out and find all those same dragonflies to shoot again using the 200-600 & extension tube combo. AND I have to pay them all another sitting fee to pose all over again. The world's not fair.

Seriously though, perhaps unnecessary w crop. But I'm still going to test w ETs.

To be honest probably not going to be a issue fo 95% of photography and if you feel your subject is getting smaller the closer you get then step back a yard although 2 m focus limit is not that close but bugs tend to not stay still for very long and allow the close up .

 

[garuda]

Paul, after going over this material you presented, it all seems true, but I'm still going back to my original view. Which is, it may be an issue for videos, but really not relevant for stills (even though it occurs), IMO. True the image may change size and the perspective may change — but with stills, you capture a single point in time. And in the case w insects, you're going to crop down anyway. Only advantage of ExtTubes is to have an enlarged original image to work with using the tubes, which is great if that's what you want. But not sure that matters too much w 60meg crops for bugs. If 60meg is pin-sharp, punching in for crop doesn't matter much IMO.

But in video it's a bit of a problem because when the breathing occurs as the AF re-adjusts focus, the breathing noticeably changes the scene perspective and size of scene even when not intentionally zooming or dollying the camera. And the viewer can notice this change. Instead of a single point in time like stills, video is a sequence of still-frames glued together, so the breathing might be deemed as undesirable depending on the scene. Whereas in photos, even if the AF hunting and AF breathing extended out for seconds (or even minutes - exaggerating) — nothing is recorded until the moment the shutter snaps. Although time consuming and wasteful, breathing and hunting doesn't affect the IQ of final photo. But it can in video.
(and as always, I could be wrong).

Test run w Tubes

 

[garuda]

To be honest probably not going to be a issue for 95% of photography.....

I agree w your 95%.

 

[Spiderx1]

Nice photos! Where they handheld or tripod???

 

[garuda]

Nice photos! Where they handheld or tripod???

Not sure who you are asking, but if me -- Thanks. The bugs and dragons are handheld.
If it's Kev, he also handheld the dragons/bugs.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Nice photos! Where they handheld or tripod???

What Mike said. All handheld.

 

[pointreyes]

No not just video ,i have seen it explained in other lenses the nikon 70-200mm f2.8 where people have use for portrait but have had a reduced f/l when subject has moved close ie for head shots etc ,although in kevs case probably not relevant in crop mode probably over 6-9 ft away anyway .https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing
Quite annoying my 70-200mm with t/c and 1.4 t/c gives me close to 300mm and focuses down to 1m which will probably give a better macro style image compared to the 200-600mm, 320mm close focusing at 2m ,thinking the 100-400 would be better still and lighter for macro shots .Anyway something to ponder.
For best macro shots extension tubes or a 1:1 macro lens

My 70-200 GM is very annoying due to the spherochromatism it causes on close-up images. I love the rendering of that lens but I will never trust it for close-ups. It did work quite well for hummingbirds though at 280 f4. It forced me to purchase the 135 GM and a Sigma 180 f2.8 1:1 macro that I have to manual focus but at least the IS still works for hand-held shots. But why stop at 1:1 macro lens, I also like to use the Laowa 25 2.5-5:1 macro lens.

I keep hoping that Sony will release a revision of the 90 that takes the teleconverters or have a mirrorless version of the old Minolta 200 f4 1:1 macro.

 

[Paul stuart]

My 70-200 GM is very annoying due to the spherochromatism it causes on close-up images. I love the rendering of that lens but I will never trust it for close-ups. It did work quite well for hummingbirds though at 280 f4. It forced me to purchase the 135 GM and a Sigma 180 f2.8 1:1 macro that I have to manual focus but at least the IS still works for hand-held shots. But why stop at 1:1 macro lens, I also like to use the Laowa 25 2.5-5:1 macro lens.

I keep hoping that Sony will release a revision of the 90 that takes the teleconverters or have a mirrorless version of the old Minolta 200 f4 1:1 macro.

Blimey baffled now ,no reason to stop at 1:1 ,i see the new canon macro is 2:1 for rf mount ,but there is a huge difference between close photography and macro the two easily get confused ,i just think that most people opt for a long lens with close focus because it is the easier choice .