So, I have done a fair bit of macro work in the past, but am by no means an expert macro photographer. I picked up a Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I got the EF version because it has automatic aperture and EXIF data, and the RF version does not.
The lens goes to 2x magnification, and this is my first 2:1 macro lens (though I did have a 1:1 on m4/3, but for some reason, this feels different). I learned immediately that for high magnifications on full frame, depth of field is just so incredibly shallow...almost feels like an order of magnitude difference from 1:1, even though I know it's not.
So I picked up a macro rail and just did a few test shots on some geodes. Obviously, not great art, but man...at 1.5:1 and 2:1, I basically needed to do 8 shots per turn, because near 2x, depth of field at f/5.6 (sharpest aperture for 2x...diffraction takes a huge hit beyond f/8-f/11) is around 1/8 of a mm. I also learned that when doing focus stacks like this, to start a little before you think the closest thing is in focus, as I missed the beginning on the first two shots, so I have a bit out of focus at the front. D'oh!
I also learned that this lens is VERY good. Nearly apochromatic, extremely sharp and a nice rendering.
For most subjects like flowers and bugs 30-50 frames are good enough. Even with this many frames to align and blend, it takes an extraordinary amount of time to do ... in Photoshop anyway. And I think it helps a great deal to be a little further away from your subject so your DOF zone is more compressed.
Jman13 wrote:
So, I have done a fair bit of macro work in the past, but am by no means an expert macro photographer. I picked up a Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I got the EF version because it has automatic aperture and EXIF data, and the RF version does not.
The lens goes to 2x magnification, and this is my first 2:1 macro lens (though I did have a 1:1 on m4/3, but for some reason, this feels different). I learned immediately that for high magnifications on full frame, depth of field is just so incredibly shallow...almost feels like an order of magnitude difference from 1:1, even though I know it's not.
So I picked up a macro rail and just did a few test shots on some geodes. Obviously, not great art, but man...at 1.5:1 and 2:1, I basically needed to do 8 shots per turn, because near 2x, depth of field at f/5.6 (sharpest aperture for 2x...diffraction takes a huge hit beyond f/8-f/11) is around 1/8 of a mm. I also learned that when doing focus stacks like this, to start a little before you think the closest thing is in focus, as I missed the beginning on the first two shots, so I have a bit out of focus at the front. D'oh!
I also learned that this lens is VERY good. Nearly apochromatic, extremely sharp and a nice rendering.
bobbytan wrote:
For most subjects like flowers and bugs 30-50 frames are good enough. Even with this many frames to align and blend, it takes an extraordinary amount of time to do ... in Photoshop anyway. And I think it helps a great deal to be a little further away from your subject so your DOF zone is more compressed.
Yeah, the stacking isn't so much of an issue...I have both ZereneStacker and Helicon Focus, which generally require minimal work from me on my end in the post processing time, though it does take a fair bit of time to export the files and let the computer do its work. But this should be nice to have a high magnification macro. I have my pieces parts to build a cheap flash bracket coming today, so that'll be nice for single shots.
Yeah, I wish I have a 100 or 150mm macro lens. The EF 100L macro is affordable ... but I think I would wait until the price of the RF version falls, or until I can afford it, as the SA control ring is a big plus to me. I have a fetish for soft and creamy/dreamy backgrounds. The new Neural Filters in PS doesn't work so well for me. Instead of a speedlite flash consider using a continuous LED panel light like this LumiCube. The 1500 LUX with 263 LEDs one should enable you to stop down to f8 or even f11 for a bit more DOF. There are lots of other less expensive generic options on Amazon and elsewhere.
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, the stacking isn't so much of an issue...I have both ZereneStacker and Helicon Focus, which generally require minimal work from me on my end in the post processing time, though it does take a fair bit of time to export the files and let the computer do its work. But this should be nice to have a high magnification macro. I have my pieces parts to build a cheap flash bracket coming today, so that'll be nice for single shots.
stanj wrote:
I am not a fan of Topaz products, but I did send them through DXO Pure Raw which is my go-to preprocessor. Without DXO it's just a bloody mess at 51k
yeah... not my taste. I know people love it, I don't. Different strokes... I also like the fact that DXO is a preprocessor, not a post processor, fits my workflow much better. But it's mainly about what it's doing, and how. It's an exciting time that we live in, I'm sure with AI we're just getting started.
