| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2005 04:23:18 PM · #1 |
| Doing some experiments zooming in on the girlfriends eye and I cannot get it crystal clear sharp. Using tripod and remote control for shutter. |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:32:33 PM · #2 |
| Please dont tell me I need a Macro lense. I have been eyeing that 100mm 2.8 USM Macro from Canon!! MMMMMMM... Macro!!! |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:33:23 PM · #3 |
I don't think it can focus close enough to fill the frame with her eye... Closest focusing distance is around 4 feet, and a .25 magnification.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:34:01 PM · #4 |
I just got the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro last week. I say make plunge and buy it... you won't regret it! :)
Next up for me is the 7-200L 4.0 USM!
Message edited by author 2005-07-18 16:34:45. |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:35:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jseyerle:
Please dont tell me I need a Macro lense. I have been eyeing that 100mm 2.8 USM Macro from Canon!! MMMMMMM... Macro!!! |
You need a Macro. :-) I just got the 60mm/2.8, and it's a gem. I'd been looking at the 100mm, but the 60 is just as sharp and it's MUCH lighter, making it a lot easier to stabilize if you're doing hand-held macro work.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:36:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by JayWalk:
I just got the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro last week. I say make plunge and buy it... you won't regret it! :)
Next up for me is the 7-200L 4.0 USM! |
That "7-200" would be one HELL Of a range, LOL.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:39:07 PM · #7 |
The 70-200/4 should be very sharp at 200mm. You might be hard pressed to achieve the magnification you need without some help. You might try extension tubes on the 70-200, that will allow you to focus closer.
Before you invest in a macro lens, be sure that you'll use it enough to make the purchase worthwhile. Bear in mind that the Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM is also a wonderfully versatile short tele and portrait lens, so take those uses into consideration as well.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2005 04:47:56 PM · #8 |
As Kirbic suggested, you need an extension tube to focus closer than 1.2 meters. This was taken handheld with a 70-200 f/4 and extension tubes at full telephoto.
Message edited by author 2005-07-18 16:48:21. |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 05:19:59 PM · #9 |
Canon 70-200L 4.0 USM... Take in account I have camera shake problem with bad nerves in my arms, neck, and shoulders. Someone with steady hands, the pictures would be even better. All shots taken handheld.
 <- 200mm Zoom
 <- 200mm Zoom
 <- 189mm Zoom |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 05:25:48 PM · #10 |
ok.. I think I wasnt using the lens correctly. I actually took a photo of her face and cropped the eye out. I suppose I should have had the zoom only on her eye. It would have been much sharper.
I think I will get the Macro lens as well. The challenges where I want to get close to the subjects really suffer as I dont have the right lens. |
|
|
|
07/18/2005 05:42:00 PM · #11 |
If your copy of the 70-200L 4.0 is anything like my 2.8, at 200mm, it should be very sharp indeed. If you're using autofocus, and it's pretty low light, your lens might not focus spot on everytime, and this could give it some softness.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2005 06:00:16 PM · #12 |
Here's something to keep in mind...
If you have a 200mm lens at f/4.0 with a subject distance of 6.0 feet, your depth of field ranges from 5.98 feet to 6.02 feet. That is... you have 0.04 feet (.48 inches) in which to place your subject for a sharp focus.
It could very well be difficult to hold the camera still and/or have your subject hold still enough to keep both camera and subject within .48" while you snap the picture.
Just a thought.
And for what it's worth... at f/2.8 the DOF is half of that. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 11:33:26 PM EDT.
