[WPRESTO]

Road through Lassen Volcanic NP, IR with Oly 17/1.8:

The IR rendering is unique and fascinating. On the one hand, I see the image as otherworldly, but with feet on the Earth, it looks as though the trees are coated with hoarfrost and rime.

Below, a truly down-to-earth subject.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[savoche]

A couple of test shots with the Oly 75-300. My knowledge of butterflies is pitiful but I identified this as a painted lady (Vanessa cardui), a visitor from North Africa. It being common made the task possible even for me

[WPRESTO]

Milkweed beetle.

[savoche]

Milkweed beetle.

That Sigma does a pretty decent job, doesn't it. That's the problem with following threads where people tell you what gear they use - it's fuel for GAS

Edit: Reminds me, I need to test the Raynox 150 on the 75-300. Maybe I don't "need" a macro for the GX80 just yet

[WPRESTO]

Edit: Reminds me, I need to test the Raynox 150 on the 75-300. Maybe I don't "need" a macro for the GX80 just yet

I ran tests with Raynox units on several zoom lenses. Some basic findings as best I remember: On a wide-to-normal zoom there was severe vignetting at wider focal lengths. With one zoom (an old Tamron) even at the longest FL there was a near circular image - trimmed at top and bottom of frame - BUT the central image IQ was good to excellent with lot of detail visible and crisply rendered. On a tele zoom (55~300mm, original version) the best results (almost self-evident) was obtained at medium focal lengths = neither the shortest nor the longest. At the longest FL (300mm) the results were unacceptable. Were someone using the latter, I would recommend determining the best FL (probably around 100~140mm) then setting the zoom there and treating it as a prime lens, leave the zoom ring alone.

---------- Post added 07-31-19 at 06:39 AM ----------

That's the problem with following threads where people tell you what gear they use - it's fuel for GAS

Way back it was widely believed that professional photographers, especially "fine art" masters, would be insulted if someone asked what equipment was used to create a beautiful image, as if the equipment were just as important as the photographer. The two standard responses:

1) For a lens, I used the bottom of a Coke bottle.

2) All my images are created with a camera and lens.

I am a hopeless gear head, sometimes suspecting that taking pictures is just an excuse for buying equipment. BUT, sometimes getting a new toy means I'll take some pictures, just to try it out, and maybe by accident I'll capture something worth sharing. As I read once, one cure for equipment mania is to see some really bad images taken with really top-notch gear.

[savoche]

I ran tests with Raynox units on several zoom lenses. Some basic findings as best I remember: On a wide-to-normal zoom there was severe vignetting at wider focal lengths. With one zoom (an old Tamron) even at the longest FL there was a near circular image - trimmed at top and bottom of frame - BUT the central image IQ was good to excellent with lot of detail visible and crisply rendered. On a tele zoom (55~300mm, original version) the best results (almost self-evident) was obtained at medium focal lengths = neither the shortest nor the longest. At the longest FL (300mm) the results were unacceptable. Were someone using the latter, I would recommend determining the best FL (probably around 100~140mm) then setting the zoom there and treating it as a prime lens, leave the zoom ring alone.

Interesting. Is this with the 250? I ran a quick test with the 150 on the 75-300 and can't see any vignetting at any FL.

On APS-C I get vignetting on a lot of lenses, but it works nicely on the old DA55-300 and FA300. Haven't really tried much with shorter focal lengths as I prefer to use the DFA100 anyway if I don't need the more extreme magnification of a tele+Raynox. I must admit that I haven't even tested the Raynox with the K-1

[savoche]

Way back it was widely believed that professional photographers, especially "fine art" masters, would be insulted if someone asked what equipment was used to create a beautiful image, as if the equipment was just as important as the photographer. The two standard responses:

1) For a lens, I used the bottom of a Coke bottle.

2) All my images are created with a camera and lens.

Yes, I know all too well that it's not the equipment that makes the images. Even so, we all want equipment that we know can perform. Of course, some of us tend to get bad copies

I am a hopeless gear head, sometimes suspecting that taking pictures is just an excuse for buying equipment. BUT, sometimes getting a new toy means I'll take some pictures, just to try it out, and maybe by accident I'll capture something worth sharing.

Again yes, I'm often (temporarily) motivated by new equipment. Just as I am motivated by going to new places. I take it as an indication that my "photographic eye" is a tad lacking when I struggle to see good images in familiar surroundings.

As I read once, one cure for equipment mania is to see some really bad images taken with really top-notch gear.

Nah, not so sure about this. I know first-hand that top-notch gear can produce bad images

But new toys are always fun.

[WPRESTO]

Interesting. Is this with the 250? I ran a quick test with the 150 on the 75-300 and can't see any vignetting at any FL.

On APS-C I get vignetting on a lot of lenses, but it works nicely on the old DA55-300 and FA300. Haven't really tried much with shorter focal lengths as I prefer to use the DFA100 anyway if I don't need the more extreme magnification of a tele+Raynox. I must admit that I haven't even tested the Raynox with the K-1

RE: The vignetting was on a wide-to-normal zoom, not a tele zoom. Let me see if I can track down some of the test images.

[WPRESTO]

Some of the test images I took for doing deep macros (= near 1:1). The 17~70mm sigma vignetted @ 70mm, but the central IQ was good. The Sigma 18~250mm did quite well @ 250mm. The old SMCA 200mm f4 (NOT the macro) plus a reverse mounted 100mm f4 bellows lens gave excellent results. BTW: no sharpening or contrast adjustment applied, but I may have adjusted the brightness some.DOF is extremely shallow, so I cannot guarantee that lack of sharpness in the deep crops of "UNUM" are not partially caused by missed focus. Images taken with a K20 on a copy stand focused with a rack & pinion rail.


1) Sigma17~70mm @ 70mm & closest focus + Raynox 2.5
2) same cropped
3) same deep crop of "UNUM"
4) Sigma 18~250mm @ 250mm, infinity + Raynox 1.5
5) same, crop of "UNUM"
6) 200mm f4 SMCA + 100mm f4 bellows reverse mounted, @ infinity
7) same, crop of "UNUM"
8) Tokina 90mm f2.5 macro _ 1:1 tube @ 1:1
9) same, crop of "UNUM"

[Clarkey]

More from the west coast:


Contemplation by Aaron, on Flickr

[UncleVanya]

Has anyone found a way to combine pinpoint focus with manual focus mode on Panasonic? I find the combination of manual focus mode and neck-button focus very nice (as the camera will use autofocus when pressing the AF button even in manual focus mode). The bonus is that I get focus peaking for both manual and auto focusing - I haven't found any way to do that with the normal "AF+MF" setting.

However, while I can choose pinpoint focusing on the AF modes I only get a fairly large rectangle area when I switch to manual focus mode. I would like to get the best of both worlds.

I have the same kind of issue on the gx1 and gx7.

[savoche]

Images taken with a K20 on a copy stand focused with a rack & pinion rail.

Ok, with APS-C I have had vignetting with several lenses (such as the 18-135), but not with e.g. the SMC DA 55-300.

And not with the Oly 75-300 on µ4/3 at any focal length. Here's a handheld shot at 200mm with the DCR-150.

[savoche]

I have the same kind of issue on the gx1 and gx7.

I suppose it makes sense and isn't that big of a deal. After all, I can just do it the other way around - use pinpoint AF and enable the "AF+MF" which will switch to manual mode focusing aid as soon as I touch the focus ring. With back button focus it's pretty much the same thing.

Another thing I notice is how much slower the camera is to focus with the pinpoint focus. Again, it makes sense, but it looks like the choice is between quick and sloppy or slow and accurate. One shouldn't expect too much speed from contrast detection, though. For my kind of shooting it's plenty fast enough anyway.

[savoche]

A shot from my first day with the GX80 and the 12-32 kit lens. The flip-up screen is nice to have for this kind of shots.

[WPRESTO]

Ok, with APS-C I have had vignetting with several lenses (such as the 18-135), but not with e.g. the SMC DA 55-300.

And not with the Oly 75-300 on µ4/3 at any focal length. Here's a handheld shot at 200mm with the DCR-150.

Exactly the experience I had in my tests - hich lenses, zooms in particular, will vignette with a Raynox is idiosyncratic and unpredictable. Not surprising the results with MFT are better as that amounts to cropping away bad corners, soft, vignetted or both. As I recommended when doing a program about closeups, following the advice of Shaw in his book "Close Ups in Nature," = experiment with what you have, see what works to your satisfaction.