[gda13]

After many attempts to find this fox, and many miles driven, I finally got some fox images.

I've been thinking about this lens a lot in the last couple of months and of whether or not I might get one...I know for versatility its hard to beat and whenever I see some of the work you produce with this lens, my apprehension for acquiring one and my resolve for holding out decreases a little less. Would it render the da*300mm unnecessary for me, I wonder, which would be a bit of a bummer since I really like that lens...anyways great pics norm.

[Erictator]

I got a picture of a fox today too...

K-3 and DA*60-250
ISO 400, ƒ5.6, AV

After many attempts to find this fox, and many miles driven, I finally got some fox images.

Wow!!! How close were you, and were you in a blind? 250mm isn't all the much reach, even with 1.5x crop factor... Those are stellar pics Norm!
Really enjoyed that set, thanks for sharing.
Eric

[normhead]

Great photos, looks like he wasn't even aware you where there.

That's pretty much from selecting a few photos from hundreds, there were lots were he is looking at me suspiciously.

Wow, those are fantastic!

Thanks

Great shots, Norm. He's got you spotted in the last one.

She always knew where i was, if I twitched she moved away.

I've been thinking about this lens a lot in the last couple of months and of whether or not I might get one...I know for versatility its hard to beat and whenever I see some of the work you produce with this lens, my apprehension for acquiring one and my resolve for holding out decreases a little less. Would it render the da*300mm unnecessary for me, I wonder, which would be a bit of a bummer since I really like that lens...anyways great pics norm.

I've had it close to 3 years and still ask myself the same question all the time, "would I be happier with the 300." Realistically about 30% of the images are taken down at around 100mm or less. And many off the longs ones are already tightly cropped at 250mm. 300 wouldn't have been better. The 150-450 is certain to be the one "do it all lens" out there that can come close to this IQ.

Wow!!! How close were you, and were you in a blind? 250mm isn't all the much reach, even with 1.5x crop factor... Those are stellar pics Norm!
Really enjoyed that set, thanks for sharing.
Eric

This fox just goes about it's business as if it you aren't there.

The whole circumstances of this shoot are documented here... a little down from jacamar's fox photos
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...nses-1323.html

[Rondec]

A couple of DA 15 limited shots.

[Kay350]

[Doundounba]

Have you ever considered getting a dSLR microscope setup? I bet you'd get up to some really interesting work!

Indeed, I have. (BTW, for those who might be interested, here's a great write-up on using microscope objectives for macro photography, mostly in the 5:1 to 10:1 magnification range.) The thing is, I'm not very interested in inanimate macro, and springtails don't really appeal to me either as subjects (not sure why). However, some of the jumping spiders we have here in the north are really small, and need at least 3:1 on APS-C to get decent frames. Getting sharper images of these spiders than I have so far is something I'd like to achieve, but better technique with my existing material is probably more likely to achieve that than a microscope objective...

[WPRESTO]

Indeed, I have. (BTW, for those who might be interested, here's a great write-up on using microscope objectives for macro photography, mostly in the 5:1 to 10:1 magnification range.) The thing is, I'm not very interested in inanimate macro, and springtails don't really appeal to me either as subjects (not sure why). However, some of the jumping spiders we have here in the north are really small, and need at least 3:1 on APS-C to get decent frames. Getting sharper images of these spiders than I have so far is something I'd like to achieve, but better technique with my existing material is probably more likely to achieve that than a microscope objective...

For live subjects microscope objectives are totally out. Both DOF and FOV are far too small, and objectives that have a diaphragm are far too dim to focus when stopped down and lose IQ to diffraction, and lens to subject distance is far too small.

The way to go is a moderate SFL telephoto (200mm is probably ideal) with an inverted lens on front. Choices:
1. a 200mm f4 Pentax base lens (A and M K-mount frequently available on EBAY for around $100 depending on condition; 135mm f3.5 or f2.8 also suitable).
2. a ~100mm short-mount bellows lens reversed on front ( provides 2X = MORE than enough magnification - if you doubt it's enough, it's certain you have not worked at 2X)
3. a good to high quality enlarging lens reversed on the front (4X = extremely difficult to use, much more magnification than needed for anything but small fleas, and maybe too much for them)
4. a 2.5X Raynox on the front (the cheapest, the easiest to obtain, and the only reason to doubt the IQ is lack of familiarity. Go to the Raynox thread and look through some of the images - these bargain-priced achromatic lenses are way superior to almost any other close-up filters. BTW: lens to subject distance with the 2.5X is 4 inches with the lens @ infinity, insignificant change in magnification by focusing the lens, actual magnification depends on the FL of the lens on which the Raynox is mounted, 200mm is excellent, 135 mm only slightly less)

Set the 200mm (or 135mm) to f16 and use flash (of course). This is the best system imaging small live subjects with decent to high IQ and as much DOF as you can get in one shot (but it isn't much). And a hint - if you are working inside with a captive subject, sometimes but not always it's easier to move the subject than the camera & flash (= set up camera & flash on tripod and stand; have the subject in some kind of container you can hold in one hand to move into focus and rotate so you get a good angle on the subject, not just its backside). And also BTW: Forget about any cylindrical glass or plastic containers. All of them I've tried have unacceptably distorted and degraded IQ.

[gda13]

x-posted from da* thread...couple from a trip last year to the cold Colorado rockies (K3 + da*55mm)


click for a larger image

Crystal Creek Reservoir


Mountain Pasqueflowers above 9000ft

[LeRolls]

Had a lovely early morning shoot with Brittany who happens to be good friends with Betty. Trying to get more used to doing full body shots.

[wtlwdwgn]

Well, LeRolls did it again. For some strange reason I'm not able to see any other posts.

[repaap]

5000m2 Lappeenranta

[Doundounba]

For live subjects ....

Well, thanks for this unsolicited advice - full of goodness, even though I'd have hoped to have a bit more of a reputation on macro around these parts by now. One detail: I have never, and currently don't intend to work with captive subjects. That being said, I'm not a stranger to 2:1-6:1 shooting. All of the following (reposts) are K-3, handheld, single frame. I'm not as convinced as you that microscope objectives may not one day have a place in my toolbox, but as I said, it's not currently the direction I'm heading in.

M 200mm F/4 plus reversed A 50mm F/1.7 (4:1):



Pentax-M 150mm F/3.5 plus reversed Vivitar 28mm F/2.8 (a little above 5:1):



Pentax-M 135mm F/3.5 plus reversed Pentax-M 28-50mm F/3.5-4.5 (probably around 3:1 to 3.5:1):



Pentax-M 135mm F/3.5 plus reversed Pentax-M 28-50mm F/3.5-4.5 (with the zoom around 30mm, so around 4.5:1):

[Driline]

5000m2 Lappeenranta

I really like the first shot. Very bold, sharp and colorful. Was that taken with the new 12mm Samyang?

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 06:40 PM ----------

F*300 along the Mississippi River....

[LeRolls]

[repaap]

I really like the first shot. Very bold, sharp and colorful. Was that taken with the new 12mm Samyang?

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 06:40 PM ----------

F*300 along the Mississippi River....

Thanks! No it was with 14mm, but I can't dial that to SR in K-3. 12 works well with 14 mm.