D60 + 100mm f2.8 macro - DPChallenge Forums

04/17/2003 06:17:55 PM · #1

Some test shots with this lens here.

All shots taken on large/fine JPEG mode and batch proofed in breeze browser.

Tests here.

If you happen to dislike shallow DoF shots, don't look at this one. It has about 1mm that is actually in focus.

04/17/2003 06:35:46 PM · #2

NICE... *drool*

Does the D60 focus correctly at this close or do you have to use manual focus?

Originally posted by Gordon:

04/17/2003 09:23:48 PM · #3

Originally posted by paganini:

NICE... *drool*

Does the D60 focus correctly at this close or do you have to use manual focus?

Originally posted by Gordon:
Some test shots with this lens here.

All shots taken on large/fine JPEG mode and batch proofed in breeze browser.

Tests here.

If you happen to dislike shallow DoF shots, don't look at this one. It has about 1mm that is actually in focus.

It focuses fine with enough light, I used a mix of manual and auto focus though - with the camera on a tripod and a prime lens and not much DoF, it is just easier to pick which bit you want in focus - you can't really focus lock and reframe as the in focus area moves off plane too much just rotating or moving the tripod head. The very shallow DoF measuring tape shot was auto focused I think.

jab119

04/17/2003 10:02:07 PM · #4

very nice.... guess I need to practice a bit more with my D60.... I just get the hang of the D60 macro shots... now the Sony 707 I can macro with that guy....

James

joebar

04/17/2003 10:44:17 PM · #5

The 100 macro is an incredible lens! Just got mine about a month ago when I got my 10D. Wish I purchased it earlier so I could have been using it with my D30 for the past year and a half!

04/18/2003 09:14:34 AM · #6

Here's another one:

04/18/2003 10:53:57 AM · #7

You suck :) heheh... nice shot... could've used it for fauna challeng.....

that's very shallow DOF......

So when are you going to get a wide angle?

04/18/2003 10:56:55 AM · #8

Originally posted by paganini:

You suck :) heheh... nice shot... could've used it for fauna challeng.....

that's very shallow DOF......

So when are you going to get a wide angle?

Couldn't decide if it was flora or fauna. Figured enough people would complain either way that I decided not to use it.

I did just want the ends of the stamen (?) in focus so it worked out, this is a really small flower head - about the size of a quarter.

Mostly just practising to get an idea of how much DoF I get at various ranges - almost impossible to tell from the LCD

I'm half thinking about not bothering about getting a wide angle. The 24mm end of my cheapo zoom is okay, and getting anything wider than 20mm seems to be pretty expensive. 20mm prime isn't much difference to the 24mm so not a whole lot of options. I'll just use my film SLR if I really need the angle I guess and get a full frame DSLR in a few years time when they cost about $700 :)

Message edited by author 2003-04-18 10:58:50.

04/18/2003 11:36:46 AM · #9

You should have entered it, either one. I'd give you a 10 for that. Obviously *some* people would say "Too bad the flower isn't in focus, 2", but that's DPc....

Yeah i also heard the 17-40mm L lens isn't that great and costs about $800. The Sigma 15-30 looks OK but it doesn't have a front thread (and thus you can't have a polarizer on which is really critical for outdoor shots in the day). So i might go with the similar route: get a cheap 20-35 mm from Canon which people say have good resolution and minimal distortion (since it's not really "superwide"). Then when the $700 full frame comes out in, oh, 5 yrs? then i'd get a 24-70mm L lens and be done with it. Personally I think Canon lags behind Nikon in the superwide area...

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
You suck :) heheh... nice shot... could've used it for fauna challeng.....

that's very shallow DOF......

So when are you going to get a wide angle?

Couldn't decide if it was flora or fauna. Figured enough people would complain either way that I decided not to use it.

I did just want the ends of the stamen (?) in focus so it worked out, this is a really small flower head - about the size of a quarter.

Mostly just practising to get an idea of how much DoF I get at various ranges - almost impossible to tell from the LCD

I'm half thinking about not bothering about getting a wide angle. The 24mm end of my cheapo zoom is okay, and getting anything wider than 20mm seems to be pretty expensive. 20mm prime isn't much difference to the 24mm so not a whole lot of options. I'll just use my film SLR if I really need the angle I guess and get a full frame DSLR in a few years time when they cost about $700 :) Though I do want a rail head for my tripod - trying to get this macro lens in the right place is PITA, while keeping the focal plane where you want it.

04/18/2003 12:08:06 PM · #10

BTW, have you looked at Linhof heads? Supposed to be good (not a rail head though), but expensive....

04/18/2003 12:14:13 PM · #11

Originally posted by paganini:

BTW, have you looked at Linhof heads? Supposed to be good (not a rail head though), but expensive....

I'm pretty happy with the manfrotto tripod that I have - has a 3D head so resonably good adjustments for normal use. Haven't looked at linhof much at all.

04/18/2003 12:57:49 PM · #12

looks like a nice lens, totally droolworthy :)

i also have been having really nice luck with the canon 50mm macro that i got last week. i opted for the 50 over the 100 for several reasons:

1) main one, is shorter focal length, so more DOF available. You can always decrease DOF but you can never add more then the lens can give you.

2) smaller, lighter and less cumbersome

3) about half the price (ok, this was actually the real reason -- the rest are all rationalizations ;)) ..

4) turns into a nice 80mm on the 10D ..

I've put a couple examples from it up here -- including some interesting min and max DOF comparisons.

50mm Macro + 10D

04/18/2003 01:18:06 PM · #13

I have both the 50mm and the 100mm macros and Though I think the 100mm is a little sharper I tend to use the 50mm a lot more than the 100mm. The main reason is the size of the 50mm is nice and the working distance is usually not a problem. I almost always go for the 180mm macro when I NEED more working distance but then most people donâ��t seem to want to shell out the $ for the 180. I have to say that I really like the 50mm macro. It is one of my favorite lenses and I seem to always have it with me (size is the reason) while the 100 and 180 usually get left at home unless I have some specific macro subject I am after. In fact my photo for the weather challenge was taken with the 50mm macro. The shot was totally unexpected, I was actually out shooting landscapes with my 24mm TS-E and the 50mm macro is what saw the action because it was the macro lens that I had with me at the time.

Greg

04/18/2003 02:13:04 PM · #14

Yes, but 50mm macro is only 0.50x life size unless you get the life-size converter. 100mm macro is 1.0x AND has shallower DOF. You basically get similar DOF shutting it down at F16 and adjusting the distances.

Slap on a 250D filter and the 100mm will be about 1.3x or 1.5x lifesize (forgot which one)!!!

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

04/18/2003 02:18:18 PM · #15

yes. exactly. it (the 100mm) has shallower DOF. but who ever wanted less DOF on a macro? you always want more ;).

Originally posted by paganini:

04/18/2003 02:18:48 PM · #16

Don't forget about using extension tubes either. The Kenko set is pretty cheap and work great with either the 50mm or the 100mm. I think overall the 100mm macro is the best compromise for macro lenses that Canon offers. If you were to only get one macro lens I think the 100mm would probably be the best one to get.

Greg

04/18/2003 02:19:48 PM · #17

yup. i went to the botanic garden and it was the only lens i took with me because i could basically put it 3 inches from something all the way up to any distance away. and no one gave me that 'you have huge lens you must be up to something' look, lol.

Originally posted by dadas115:

04/18/2003 02:58:18 PM · #18

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

yes. exactly. it (the 100mm) has shallower DOF. but who ever wanted less DOF on a macro? you always want more ;).

Urm - are you sure this is correct ? If I come back far enough that the subject is only 0.5 life size, and set the aperture the same, doesn't that result in the same DoF ? As far as I can tell working it out, it works out at pretty much exactly the same DoF.

04/18/2003 03:01:01 PM · #19

Yes. Increased focal length = decreased depth of focus @ aperture x.

04/18/2003 03:01:41 PM · #20

Yes Gordon you are correct.

04/18/2003 03:02:32 PM · #21

i dont think so but im willing to be convinced that i'm wrong :)

Originally posted by dadas115:

Yes Gordon you are correct.

04/18/2003 03:03:06 PM · #22

No, I think I'm talking bollocks.

you'd have to halve the subject distance for the 50mm to get the same size, but stop it down a lot more to get equivalent depth of field.

So in general the 100mm gives more depth of field options, as you can work further away hence more dof for the same aperture ? Somehow this seems wrong, but the tables seem to agree.

Message edited by author 2003-04-18 15:04:25.

04/18/2003 03:09:05 PM · #23

As long as you are at the same magnification and aperture then your DOF will be the same. The 100mm lens will be further away from the subject to get the same magnification.

Greg

04/18/2003 03:12:13 PM · #24

after some reading

_macro_ range depth of field approximates to

DOF = 2*COF*fstop*(m+1)*(m*m)

Where the COF is the circle of confusion size (relates to print sharpness)
fstop is the aperture size, and m is the magnification

so, for equivalent magnifications (ie., if I pull back from the subject to 0.5 magnification, and at the same fstop, the 50mm and 100mm macro should have the same DoF.

I'm glad I wasn't going mad there.

It _is_ different at non-macro ranges, however.