macro lens
Jun 27, 2016 06:14:26 #
napabob wrote:
if you use them where are the pictures?...............a total of 49 new topics and not a one of macro, thanks for your advice 
. Brenda at least shoots and posts her pictures...........and doesn't just talk about em............
. Brenda at least shoots and posts her pictures...........and doesn't just talk about em............What is your issue with me or anyone else for that matter? You got plenty of answers to read thru. It' OK that we do your research for you and then not have time to post our own images if we choose to.
There an entire section of the UHH devoted to only macro. Do your (own) research.
Jun 27, 2016 08:14:41 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
lamiaceae wrote:
Really, why? I use actual Pentax Macro lenses, tubes, and bellows, both K-mount and Screw-mount versions. Is that uncool, must a use a fake macro-zoom lens?
What is with the word "research" now on the UHH, cliched now like GAS was a year ago?
What is with the word "research" now on the UHH, cliched now like GAS was a year ago?
your macro lens set up sounds quite correct to me. with the tubes and bellows unit, you are probably photographing at greater than 1:1. bellows units are the way to go for macro. and the pentax bodies are quite fine. as for a zoom "macro" lens, well, there is no such thing. macro lenses are optically designed for close work and flat field across the entire aperture range. sounds like to me, you have got the prosess nailed!
good luck with your work. and by the way, it also seems you have resisted the narcisisstic desire of posting your work - good for you!
Jun 27, 2016 09:39:39 #
[quote=lamiaceae]What is your issue with me or anyone else for that matter? You got plenty of answers to read thru. It' OK that we do your research for you and then not have time to post our own images if we choose to.
To Lamiaceae.
I would like to clear up the misunderstandings created during this thread. Firstly, it was Mark 7829 who introduced the 'do your research' comment and not myself.
My comment related to Mark 7829's comment that everyone who had posted above his post probably had never used a macro. I thought this to be rude to the point of insulting to those who had tried to help and showed a lack of the research he had advocated. I pointed out to him that I did shoot macro regularly.
I think at this point my post was confusing and your reasonable but also confusing resulting post confused another member who then commented and you then mistook him for the person posting the initial question and hence became annoyed with him. Hence the muddle that got more muddled with each post.
All this because Mark 7829 criticised advice of those who had proceeded him.
I hope this clears it all and we are back to status quo.
To Lamiaceae.
I would like to clear up the misunderstandings created during this thread. Firstly, it was Mark 7829 who introduced the 'do your research' comment and not myself.
My comment related to Mark 7829's comment that everyone who had posted above his post probably had never used a macro. I thought this to be rude to the point of insulting to those who had tried to help and showed a lack of the research he had advocated. I pointed out to him that I did shoot macro regularly.
I think at this point my post was confusing and your reasonable but also confusing resulting post confused another member who then commented and you then mistook him for the person posting the initial question and hence became annoyed with him. Hence the muddle that got more muddled with each post.
All this because Mark 7829 criticised advice of those who had proceeded him.
I hope this clears it all and we are back to status quo.
Jun 27, 2016 12:10:14 #
[quote=EnglishBrenda]
Thank you for the clarification for everyone. I was aware that the person who annoyed me a little and the OP were not one in the same, but yes the entire thread where I was involved eventually got totally confusing and lost and useless to the original poster.
Fall out: I'm not totally happy with the new UHH format and feel the inconsistent use of Reply and Quote Reply makes for a hopeless mess. Anyway, on to more pressing matters like GAS and Brown Trucks.
lamiaceae wrote:
What is your issue with me or anyone else for that... (show quote)
Thank you for the clarification for everyone. I was aware that the person who annoyed me a little and the OP were not one in the same, but yes the entire thread where I was involved eventually got totally confusing and lost and useless to the original poster.
Fall out: I'm not totally happy with the new UHH format and feel the inconsistent use of Reply and Quote Reply makes for a hopeless mess. Anyway, on to more pressing matters like GAS and Brown Trucks.
Jun 27, 2016 14:23:50 #
Macronaut wrote:
So Bob, are you saying that I should be cautious of advice on sports photography from someone that doesn't go to any games? 
seems prudent.............
Jun 28, 2016 15:26:50 #
Apaflo wrote:
True, but that is when focused at infinity. If focused to provide a 1:1 image on the sensor the effective aperture is then f/64.
The effective aperture is the one to use for exposure, and also to calculate diffraction. Hence f/64 is very significant for image quality.
The effective aperture is the one to use for exposure, and also to calculate diffraction. Hence f/64 is very significant for image quality.
Good to know. I did read that on the macro site. I am still getting ideas for a good macro setup and they have a lot of DIY setups on their pages. After getting the lens, I will decide on bellows or rail, and ring light or Nikons light system. In the meantime, I can fashion my own diffuser for my 900 speedlight.
Jun 28, 2016 16:01:53 #
Jun 28, 2016 20:02:59 #
GrandmaG wrote:
I didn't look to see if this link had been posted already or if you have already visited..... http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.htmlGood to know. I did read that on the macro site. I am still getting ideas for a good macro setup and they have a lot of DIY setups on their pages. After getting the lens, I will decide on bellows or rail, and ring light or Nikons light system. In the meantime, I can fashion my own diffuser for my 900 speedlight.
Jul 5, 2016 02:12:31 #
Macronaut wrote:
I didn't look to see if this link had been posted already or if you have already visited..... http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
Yes, that is where I looked. I've already reviewed the first three posts and the pages that go with them. Some of those setups are pretty interesting. If the OP gets into macro photography, this is a great place to start!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.