My first attempt

[TOPTON]

Here's my first attempt at anything macroish(new word!!)

Not up to the standard required on the macro thread so I thought I'd start my own. I'm quite pleased with it for my first attempt. About 100% crop of original

[DibblyDobbler]

Nice first effort

What settings + equipment did you use ?

[TOPTON]

It was taken with a Nikon D3100 with a Tamron AF 70-300mm Macro LD Di, iso 400 f5.6 at 1/60. Hand held so I was worried it would be more blurred than it is.
I cheated and put the camara on its macro setting and let it do the work. Perhaps I should have gone shutter priority to lift that a bit, but still learning.
There is a lot of movement happening with a 300mm lens on full macro set up so I am thinking of getting some extension tubes to use. Which would be the best lens to use them with, I have 18-55, 55-200, 70-300 and 50mm prime. So I'm guessing the 50 with tubes???

Another one I like, no cropping on this one

[Gemm]

Good first attempt! The key to macro photography is the lighting. Colours and details need to pop out. Your shot looks a bit dull in this respect, as well as slight under-exposure. I personally use a flash (or two) for insect shots for this reason, and also to keep the shutter speed high enough for hand-holding. Hope this helps and enjoy! This is a very addictive world you've come into!

[Simpo Two]

TOPTON said:

It was taken with a Nikon D3100 with a Tamron AF 70-300mm Macro LD Di, iso 400 f5.6 at 1/60. Hand held so I was worried it would be more blurred than it is.

1/60th at 300mm is impressive but it looks like you used flash which has helped freeze the subject - as the flash has done most of the exposure and is very much faster than 1/60th.

TOPTON said:

I cheated and put the camara on its macro setting and let it do the work.

Sadly a 'macro' setting on a DSLR is nothing to do with macro photography and can make no physical difference to anything. AFAIK it just jiggles JPG parameters so your flowers come out more colourful, or something.

TOPTON said:

There is a lot of movement happening with a 300mm lens on full macro set up so I am thinking of getting some extension tubes to use. Which would be the best lens to use them with, I have 18-55, 55-200, 70-300 and 50mm prime. So I'm guessing the 50 with tubes???

Macro is about magnification, and that will make camera shake more of a problem however you attain that magnification. But yes, a 50mm prime is usually the preferred starting point unless you want a dedicated macro lens. You could also use the 18-55mm, and that would give you variable magnification.

The other issue you will encounter, as magnification increases, is that your depth of field will rapidly shrink, so that is another law of physics you can enjoy trying to beat


ETA the flash photo I was referring to was the cat; if you managed the spider handheld in ambient light at 300mm that's very good, and you have the plane of focus right too.

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 16th November 09:55

[TOPTON]

Thanks for the comments guys. Any good, and bad pointers are always welcome.

I think I may sell my Nikon 55-200 and buy a dedicated macro lens, as I think that is where I have always wanted to go.
The Sigma 105mm f2.8 seems to get good reviews. But maybe and its a big maybe, santa may bring me the Nikon version.
Then I'll need a ring flash and a,STOP. Better stop thinking now

[Simpo Two]

There's always s/h on eBay of course - though good lenses can go for almost as much as new ones. I started with a Nikon 60mm f2.8 but the working distance was close which made lighting a problem; I now have the 105mm and it's much more useable. The current version is AF-S VR but you could get the older AF-D version for less (won't AF on entry-level bodies but that's not so important in macro-land).

If shooting in ambient light a tripod will help/be essential, so one more thing to ponder