| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
1
|
2
| |
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
| |
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
| |
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
| |
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
| » Stats |
Members: 50,172
Threads: 82,383
Posts: 853,529
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069) | | Welcome to our newest member, lemajanyvb | |  | | 
22-03-2009, 10:15 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: S. Devon
Posts: 3,900
| | | Re: Tripod for outdoor macro Photography The 105 is fine for flowers or other objects where you can get up close, or larger specimens but for insects I would recommend the 150 which gives that little bit more working distance for those easily spooked species. A lot of macro photographers on this site use the Sigma 150 but there are other makes available.
I prefer the 180 and often find that a bit short, especially when working in brambles, gorse or larger bushes where it is physically impossible to get any closer. | 
23-03-2009, 06:16 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: S. Devon
Posts: 3,900
| | | Re: Tripod for outdoor macro Photography Hello again, James. This may just add to the confusion, but here goes anyway.
Went for a walk today, a general walk so I took a general purpose lens, my Canon 70-300. Also, just in case anything interesting occured, I added a 25mm extension tube and the lightweight Velbon CX mini tripod.
Took a few photos, 3 of which are attached. The tripod was, in this case, definitely too short for the undergrowth and I had to use it at maximum length all the time. Even then, with a longish lens I was mostly looking eye to eye with the subjects which is fine for a few shots but I often tend to prefer angling downwards to improve depth of field while reaching over the intervening flora.
But with these sample photos I managed a better angle although I was only able to do this by getting in fairly close and setting the zoom to around 150-200 mm.
Anyhow, I hope this will give you some indication of what can be achieved with a tube. I would expect to get slightly sharper images with a macro lens but after a touch of Unsharp Mask and a smidgen of Curves I think these samples are acceptable.  
ps. they have been cropped a bit. F11 ISO 400-800.
Geoff.
Last edited by Geoff F; 23-03-2009 at 06:18 PM.
Reason: extra line
| 
23-03-2009, 07:58 PM
|  | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: East Harling, Norfolk
Posts: 8,965
| | | Re: Tripod for outdoor macro Photography Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1863 Yep, £85.00 for the 190XPROB (without a head), cheap as chips  | I didn't say 'cheap', I said 'cheaper'  Plus for a decent tripod, I'd say that's very cheap | 
24-03-2009, 07:58 PM
|  | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: May 2007 Location: Surrey
Posts: 265
| | | Re: Tripod for outdoor macro Photography Geoff, those photos are great and along the lines of how close I'd like my shots to be, maybe a touch closer. But hey, beggers can't be choosers. I may, in the long run, have to get 2 lenses, one for invertebrates and one for flowers, then once I have good shots of "an" invertebrate (say peacock butterfly) on the invert lens, I could try and get it on the closer focussing "flower" lens. | 
26-03-2009, 08:28 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: S. Devon
Posts: 3,900
| | | Re: Tripod for outdoor macro Photography In most cases, providing you can move back a little, something like a 150 mm macro lens will suffice for all purposes. |  | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | Spammers! Yesterday 01:53 PM 8 Replies, 189 Views | | | | | |