[Rabe]

These are my first attempts at any sort of macro photography. Taken with the DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED with a Raynox 250. Spider is originally about 2cm long, and the ant is about 2mm long.


Despite what I have read only get vignetting in the middle range (120-200) and its perfect before/after this point.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[weakhead]

They lack sharpness. Maybe that lens isn't sharp enough for macro (I don't know that), but the fact that you've used aperture value of F32 definitely didn't helped here. Of course, you probably did that to preserve some depth of field.
Lightning is awful. You've used flash, right? Try to soften the light using diffuser - even home made will do.
Second picture doesn't give much clue to what I'm looking at... framing is uninteresting and it also lack some worthy moment, and I'm not talking about NG-worthy moment, but just being able to see ant's head looking toward you would give better result.
It's your first attempt at macro, so don't worry. If you feel that it's fun, don't give up and train, shoot more. I also suck at macro, so don't even give a damn about my comment

[snappychappy]

For first attempt's they are very good IMHO I think the first shot is particularly well taken. I would be pleased with it anyway.

[Rabe]

Yep used f32 for dof. I'm seeing a lot of macros being taken at f7-8 and wonder how they get the subject in focus. Flash was use with a diffuser already but had it pointing straight, might try bouncing. At this stage I wasn't trying to frame the subject at all the challenge was trying to get them in focus before they moved.

Thanks for replies, will go out and shoot some more.

[MSL]

I'm usually light limited, and I've been trying macro with extension tubes rather than a Raynox so I haven't gone much beyond f16 on a SuperTak 55 or f8-11 on a SuperTak 135. One thing I have found is that trying to get as much magnification as possible when you first start out can make it harder to pick up good techniques or to see what is working or not. At least in my case I very quickly saw that having the extra working distance the 135 gave me helped so much relative to how close I had to be to the subject when shooting with the 55.

There are a few users here who really know what they are doing either with reversed lenses or other magnification means, and I'd suggest you poke around. These folks also have good tips on how to capture certain creatures. If you have trouble with the search let me know.

[photolady95]

I like the first image. That's pretty sharp and a good one for first attempt. However, I think you bought the wrong Raynox size. According to most who own that adapter, the consenses is, this:

The 250 works best with standard or mild telephoto lenses. The Raynox 150 goes well with longer lenses, say above 135mm

Taken from the Raynox Club. If you take the time to read through the first few pages, you'll see what I'm saying is true.

[Rabe]

I bought the 250 for my 50mm not for this, but still waiting on step down ring (it fits with adapter but is bloody hard to get back off). From what I read the reason for the 150 on the larger focal telephotos is to stop vignetting, which I barely experience.

Am going to do a bit more reading on technique, hopefully prevent the shadows im getting and framing the subject.

[photolady95]

This is another quote from that thread and more to my point. Specifically, the part about working distance:

What you get with a 250 on a 55-300 is 1:2 macro and over 2:1 macro and nothing useable in between. The 150 doesn't vignette at all, and still goes all the way to about 1.5:1, which is quite enough. More magnification gets very difficult to handle in the field. Also, the 150 gives you about double the working distance, which is a major advantage.

[Rabe]

This is another quote from that thread and more to my point. Specifically, the part about working distance:

Agree the working distance is hard to work with (~13cm @ 300mm) but nothing in between comment is exaggerated haha, unless he mounted it incorrectly

[photolady95]

I am sure he didn't mount it incorrectly. I had the Raynox 150 and used it on my Sigma 70-300mm @300mm, but had to sell due to health reasons. I did get some shots before I sold it and I bought this one because Marc Sabatella and audiobomber (Creator of that thread and author of those quotes, said it was the best for longer focal lengths.

I'm only trying to help you since you're new to using the Raynox adapter and macros. Which I do a lot, though not with the Raynox for now. Check my flickr and my latest in my PPG.

[Rabe]

Will do, thanks for your help