13 "masterpieces" :) jk

OK after about 4800 photos from my Canon Digital Rebel XT, I would
like to share 13 photos (nice average huh?). Take a look, what do you
think?
Lenses used:

Canon 28-135 IS USM 3.5
Canon 70-300 IS USM 3.5

Still curious on some of the "close-ups", I'm curious on what they
could look like on a true MACRO lense. The "close-ups" are as close
as I could get using the lenses above with the subject still remaining
in focus...if I tried to get closer, I would lose focus.

After a very stressful day at my real job, searching for the "perfect"
photo can be fun.

http://picasaweb.google.com/dohc46

dohc46 wrote:
OK after about 4800 photos from my Canon Digital Rebel XT, I would
like to share 13 photos (nice average huh?). Take a look, what do
you think?
Lenses used:

Canon 28-135 IS USM 3.5
Canon 70-300 IS USM 3.5

Still curious on some of the "close-ups", I'm curious on what they
could look like on a true MACRO lense. The "close-ups" are as close
as I could get using the lenses above with the subject still
remaining in focus...if I tried to get closer, I would lose focus.

After a very stressful day at my real job, searching for the
"perfect" photo can be fun.

http://picasaweb.google.com/dohc46

Look pretty good color- and sharp-wise.

Now post some pictures of your Mustang.

--
Frank ess

dohc46 wrote:
OK after about 4800 photos from my Canon Digital Rebel XT, I would
like to share 13 photos (nice average huh?). Take a look, what do you
think?

Too much centred. Stop putting everything in the centre,
you are not documenting.

Compare your
http://picasaweb.google.com/dohc46/B...81527397717618
with
http://www.shooting4joy.com/gallery/...228339485-A-LB
which is the same shot plus some cropping.


Lenses used:

Canon 28-135 IS USM 3.5
Canon 70-300 IS USM 3.5

Not really important :-)

Still curious on some of the "close-ups", I'm curious on what they
could look like on a true MACRO lense.

Get yourself a butterfly.
Measure off 2.2cm by 1.5cm (0.87inch by 0.59inch).
That's what you get with a macro at 1:1.

If you really want to get fancy, there's the MP-E, a macro
only lens going from 1:1 to 1:5 (i.e. from 2.2x1.5cm to
0.44x0.3cm object size). It's not cheap and manual focus,
and you want a macro flash unit, and you get a DOF of less
than a hair's breadth (literally!).

The "close-ups" are as close
as I could get using the lenses above with the subject still remaining
in focus...if I tried to get closer, I would lose focus.

Try a close up lens --- much cheaper, smaller and lighter than a
macro, if you decide after all not to like macros. It obviously
isn't quite as good. An achromat version (like the 250D and 500D
from Canon) is much better than a one-element solution.

-Wolfgang

as far as closeup you can use closeup lenses by canon further more the 100
mm 2.8 macro is a very good lens but for me a little to long. I'd rather
the 65mm 2.8 1to 5 x but very expensive $1200.00 canadian so i'll probably
go for the 60mm 2.8 some $450 or so.
Jean
p.s. I also have an extension tube 25mm but the auto focus don't work with
my 17-85 efs lens.


--
Photos
http://www.chez.com/anaclet

On Dec 4, 1:40 pm, faune8 wrote:
as far as closeup you can use closeup lenses by canon further more the 100
mm 2.8 macro is a very good lens but for me a little to long. I'd rather
the 65mm 2.8 1to 5 x but very expensive $1200.00 canadian so i'll probably
go for the 60mm 2.8 some $450 or so.
Jean
p.s. I also have an extension tube 25mm but the auto focus don't work with
my 17-85 efs lens.

--
Photos
http://www.chez.com/anaclet

If you are serious about the MP-E 65 you need to know that it is a
fixed focus lens and will only focus at 4" @ 1X down to 1.6" @ 5X. It
will not focus past 4". It is a great lens for what it does, but it
is not a general purpose lens. And if you are looking at it you
pretty much better plan on the macro flash, ring or twin light to go
with it.