This hawk was sitting comfortably on that rooftop, checking out breakfast options on the menu this morning. By the time I got hold of the camera, changed lenses and got the 400 propped inside the glass to point at it, it was being divebombed alternatively by 2 bluejays. In the time it took to focus and set the shutter speed/aperture, the hawk had already given up its perch and this shot was the only one I got.
saph wrote:
This hawk was sitting comfortably on that rooftop, checking out breakfast options on the menu this morning. By the time I got hold of the camera, changed lenses and got the 400 propped inside the glass to point at it, it was being divebombed alternatively by 2 bluejays. In the time it took to focus and set the shutter speed/aperture, the hawk had already given up its perch and this shot was the only one I got.
Great shot, samy, and welcome back. Based on the story, the bluejay is celebrating, "I did it!"
Thanks guys for the comments on the hawk vs. bluejay pair battle which the hawk meekly gave up on and took off. Its always interesting seeing little birds ferociously chase away bigger birds of prey. I have even seen a single little bird chase and peck away at a larger bird like a hawk or vulture.
Jose, I will have to remember your scientific term "mobbing" when I see that again.
leighton w wrote:
I know it's another with the 50-135mm, but it works well for me since most of the images I get on trips around the neighborhood are taken from my truck.
I have just returned from a visit to what is called here as the Rocky Mountain Front. It is where the mountains meet the plains in a very dramatic fashion. The whole front is a mass of escarpments, often called "reefs" (as in Capitol Reef in Utah). The area reportedly has the greatest biodiversity of any place in the lower 48. All the large mammals that were here pre-Europeans are still here, including the plains grizzly bear (so far have been lucky enough to avoid contact). The main draw at this time of year are the wildflowers, particularly the Arrowleaf Balsamroot, which looks like a short sunflower. Acres upon acres turn yellow. I used mainly my 25mm Loxia and 35mm Voigtlander and Sony for that, so will be posting over there a little later if you want to see what hundreds of acres of balsamroot looks like.
For the most part the weather was pretty decent, given our cool rainy spring this year (need the moisture). This zone is usually very windy. However, I did have one overcast, wet afternoon when the wind stopped. I went out in search of what the woods had to offer (with bear spray!), and came upon these gems. (I prefer overcast for flowers). They are known as Pasque Flowers (Anemone patens). I don't have them around me on the west side of the Divide, and most of the bloom had come and gone, but in this cool hollow ("holler", for you Shenandoahans/Appalachians) there were a few left.
I used the micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 at f4 (I think) with an adapter on my Sony A7RIII, and I think the lens acquitted itself very nicely. This is a 6-image focus stack.
After complaining earlier about the colors from my Sony vs the Df, these colors came out spot on with little "tweaking" needed. Also, I should note, the large flower is a little smaller than the size of a quarter.
Thanks for tuning in - more to come later (I took over 1200 images)
I have noticed more than a few people here use extension tubes. In the 45 years that I have had an SLR, DSLR, MILC, I have never experimented/played with tubes. As witnessed in the above post, I do enjoy macro photography (to a point - not interested in really tiny things like nematodes, amoebas or atoms).
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Apo-lanthar lens as a macro (rather than spring for one of their large, heavy macros, like the 65mm or 110mm), would tubes be a cheaper, lighter way to go? What sizes are recommendaed? Any downsides?
I have noticed more than a few people here use extension tubes. In the 45 years that I have had an SLR, DSLR, MILC, I have never experimented/played with tubes. As witnessed in the above post, I do enjoy macro photography (to a point - not interested in really tiny things like nematodes, amoebas or atoms).
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Apo-lanthar lens as a macro (rather than spring for one of their large, heavy macros, like the 65mm or 110mm), would tubes be a cheaper, lighter way to go? What sizes are recommendaed? Any downsides?
Essentially tuben enable you to get closer, but at the same time you lose infinity (or even medium range) focus ability. The thicker the tube, the closer you get. You also get shorter focus range. There is usually data sheets that tell you how a given tube affects various lenses.
graytrekker wrote:
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my...
Here is a short technical guide I wrote long time ago on how to select and use extension tubes and close-up lenses: Introduction to Close-up photography
As a general remark, to take close-up pictures with lenses shorter than 70-80 mm extension tubes are preferable. With longer lenses, (two-element, achromat) close-up filters work better.
With a 50 mm lens (50/2 Apo Lanthar), you need 25 mm extension to get 1:2 (with the lens focused at infinity; magnification is slightly larger when you rotate the focus ring).
I have noticed more than a few people here use extension tubes. In the 45 years that I have had an SLR, DSLR, MILC, I have never experimented/played with tubes. As witnessed in the above post, I do enjoy macro photography (to a point - not interested in really tiny things like nematodes, amoebas or atoms).
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Apo-lanthar lens as a macro (rather than spring for one of their large, heavy macros, like the 65mm or 110mm), would tubes be a cheaper, lighter way to go? What sizes are recommendaed? Any downsides?
Ripolini, thanks for the link to your article. Nice primer.
Doug, tubes shorten the minimum focus distance of any lens, as mentioned above. I find it handy for anything up to about 135mm; anything longer and the amount of extension needed tends to get impractical for me. I suggest getting a range of tube lengths (they are inexpensive can can be purchased as a set). I have set from Kenkos and one original Nikon that work well, and of course there are the Nikon ones for F-mount. I have purchased all my tubes in the used marketplace, they show up very often and are much better value than buying new if that works for you.
I also have a set of Kenko and a set of Nikon. The Nikon are solid metal, the Kenko are more plastic, but both do the job. Sets were bought used. One of the 55's came with its own tube, too, the M2 to provide 1:1
pbraymond wrote:
Ripolini, thanks for the link to your article. Nice primer.
Doug, tubes shorten the minimum focus distance of any lens, as mentioned above. I find it handy for anything up to about 135mm; anything longer and the amount of extension needed tends to get impractical for me. I suggest getting a range of tube lengths (they are inexpensive can can be purchased as a set). I have set from Kenkos and one original Nikon that work well, and of course there are the Nikon ones for F-mount. I have purchased all my tubes in the used marketplace, they show up very often and are much better value than buying new if that works for you....Show more →
Doug,
I am unaware of any rules concerning using tubes. Basically they shorten the MFD (Minimum Focal Distance) on any lens attached. A downside is loss of infinity focus (as mentioned already), or a shortening of DOF. I use an old all metal auto (works with AF, and lets the camera body communicate with the lens) Kenko set of 12, 20, and 36mm. I also own a K1-5 set, and M2 bare metal tubes with Nikon's pretty black finish. The 55mm f3.5 was sold with the M2 to allow 1:1 (as NC mentioned) macro. My primary reason to choose a tube or not is working distance, and/or lighting. I have used them for macro through super telephoto lenses.
Jim
graytrekker wrote:
QUESTION:
I have noticed more than a few people here use extension tubes. In the 45 years that I have had an SLR, DSLR, MILC, I have never experimented/played with tubes. As witnessed in the above post, I do enjoy macro photography (to a point - not interested in really tiny things like nematodes, amoebas or atoms).
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Apo-lanthar lens as a macro (rather than spring for one of their large, heavy macros, like the 65mm or 110mm), would tubes be a cheaper, lighter way to go? What sizes are recommendaed? Any downsides?
I have noticed more than a few people here use extension tubes. In the 45 years that I have had an SLR, DSLR, MILC, I have never experimented/played with tubes. As witnessed in the above post, I do enjoy macro photography (to a point - not interested in really tiny things like nematodes, amoebas or atoms).
Can you tell me - do extension tubes basically turn any lens into a macro lens? For example, say I wanted to use my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Apo-lanthar lens as a macro (rather than spring for one of their large, heavy macros, like the 65mm or 110mm), would tubes be a cheaper, lighter way to go? What sizes are recommendaed? Any downsides?
I have found that different lenses even of the same focal length can vary when using tubes. For instance I have two 300mm f/4.5 lenses and prefer the extended results with the non-IF version. (This is a nice combo for isolating flowers in trees.)
Many lenses of shorter focal length do better at higher magnification when reversed, with many exceptions.
I think a good approach is to concentrate on a reproduction ratio of interest and then read up and/or experiment to get the best results.
Ripolini wrote:
Here is a short technical guide I wrote long time ago on how to select and use extension tubes and close-up lenses: Introduction to Close-up photography
As a general remark, to take close-up pictures with lenses shorter than 70-80 mm extension tubes are preferable. With longer lenses, (two-element, achromat) close-up filters work better.
With a 50 mm lens (50/2 Apo Lanthar), you need 25 mm extension to get 1:2 (with the lens focused at infinity; magnification is slightly larger when you rotate the focus ring).
Thanks much for your help, Riccardo, and all the others who responded.
