stogie1020

Billiam, that's prety much the conclusion I am coming to after pricing out a $23,000 long range imaging system...

I need to do a site visit to evaluate the lighting conditions more thouroughly, as regular light optics seem to be the only reasonable option.

FYI, this is a surveillance engagement my firm is looking at, that has to be kept in-house for security reasons. This would be easier if I could convince everyone to let me hide in the desert for four hours on my belly with a 500mm 9from a closer vantage point), but no one else here thinks that is that safest option...

Osamu

meh, I'd just buy a 1200L......

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp
just to give you an idea of how long 1200mm is

sigma has the sigmonster (300-800mm f/5.6) you could probably get for around 7k or less, and I think it can take 1.4X or 2X TC's. But I'm not sure if it's fast enough for anything lowish light.

there are also mirror lenses, that I think are really cheap. I haven't looked into them at all though as they say the image quality is sub par.

Dan Martin

This sounds like a job for the bazooka!



It comes with a 2x converter that turns it into a 400-1000, but there's nothing stopping you from putting on another 2x for extra win. Throw a 50D on there and call it a day.

... or you can just get a telescope like billiam suggested, but I'd try to convince the company that you need the sigma.

stogie1020

Request for the Sigma/1200L is pending...

Probably going to use:


• Focal length of 2000mm with an f/15.4 aperture

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ing_Scope.html




If the client approves...

Osamu

I liked the sigzooka better in matte black.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...49&navigator=3
but w/ the 2X converter it does lose two stops making it 400-1000 f/5.6 (and like 5X the price of the sigmonster).

but if 500mm is long enough, you can't beat the constant f/2.8 at that FL


edit: wasn't it only like 24k when it first came out, now the site says 34k

Billiam

OK. A little scope imaging 101. The recommendation I made was for afocal imaging where you have an eyepiece in the scope, put a camera up to it and shoot. This is very different than prime focus imaging where you connect a camera to a scope with something like a T-Ring and adapter and use the scope as a lens on the camera.

With prime focus imaging, the focal length of the scope is equivalent to the focal length of a lens. A 2,000mm FL scope is the same as having a 2,000mm FL lens.

With afocal imaging you don't really deal with focal lengths so much as you deal with straight up magnification powers. You can figure these by taking the focal length of the scope and dividing it by the focal length of the eyepiece you have in the scope.

Now lets run some numbers...

On an SLR, the equivalent to "the focal length of an eyepiece" is the film plane distance. On a full frame body this is 50mm. Hence the reason that a 50mm lens is a "normal" non-magnifying/non-reducing lens. On a crop body SLR, the film plane distance is .6x of 50mm or roughly 30mm.

So using a .6 crop SLR body in prime focus on a scope with 2,000mm focal length is going to give you a magnification of 66x (2,000 / 30). If you go the afocal route, you could get the equivalent magnification by shooting through a 12mm eyepiece in an 800mm FL scope (800 / 12 = 66x).

Some additional things to consider:

Achieving sharp focus when shooting with the prime focus method can be a MAJOR pain in the ass. A bit more so even with mirror-based scopes such as the Mak-Cass you linked to at B&H. With afocal imaging, you focus visually while looking through the scope's eyepiece. You then mount the camera up to the eyepiece, manually set the camera's focus at infinity, and fire.

When it comes to imaging, I would personally recommend refractor scopes (ones based on regular glass lenses) over mirror based scope designs such as a Mak-Cass or Schmidt-Cass. The flip side of this is aperture. If you're shooting in low light conditions, then you may want a scope with a bigger aperture to pull in more light. Bigger aperture scopes are more or less the domain of mirror based designs.

But because nothing is ever easy, you also have to consider the f/number of the telescope. A scope with a faster focal ratio is going to deliver a brighter image to the camera than a scope with a slower focal ratio. In this regard, the numbers are the same as regular still photography. An f/8 scope is going to deliver an image to a camera that's two stops brighter than an f/16 scope. So in theory an f/8 scope could have one forth the aperture as an f/16 scope and still give a camera an image of equal brightness. And don't forget when you're comparing scope apertures you're talking about areas of circles not the diameters of them. So in terms of image brightness, scope X having one quarter the aperture of scope Y would not mean the aperture measurement (diameter) is one fourth.

Confusing enough?

Mizouse

wow, i want one of those 1200mm lenses now

Evader

Thoughts on either of these two lenses for macro photography?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...D_IF_AF_S.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

Should I stick with Nikon Glass or does anyone have some thoughts you care to share about Sigma or any of the other brands out there?

Dan Martin

I'd skip the 60mm and go with 100mm+ for your first macro lens. The 105mm VR is a fantastic macro, as is the Sigma 150mm. The VR is nice for handheld macros, but the extra working distance and better subject isolation of the Sigma is great too.

If you think you're going to handhold most of your macros, the 105mm VR might be a little easier to use. The 150mm comes with a tripod foot which balances your rig nicely and makes it super easy to change from landscape to portrait orientation when mounted to a tripod.

The image quality of both lenses is superb, so you just have decide what features you like best.

waTSX

Holy crap. $99,000, but no tax if you live out of state.

Evader

Dan,

Thank you for the helpful insight. I actually just bought a tripod this weekend and I'm very impressed at the ease of use so i'll probably do some shooting with and without.

Here is a "stupid" question for macro shots. If you were taking a macro shot of say a flower or even a bumble bee. What is the proper way of taking this shot, do you get in as close to the subject as possible with the lens and then zoom in for even more detail, or do you stand a few feet or even several feet away and just zoom in? I'll look at the Sigma 150mm but the VR feature seems to help alot so I might stick with the Nikkor glass on this one. I think this will probably be it for lenses for awhile atleast until christmas and then maybe santa will bring a nice Wideangle and/or a fisheye lens for a stocking stuffer

hrj

iTrader: (1)

The VR in the 105 VR degrades as the focus gets closer. At 1:1, the VR is virtually useless.

moeronn

I might have to start looking for a marco lens. The extension tubes weren't exactly what I was expecting - or maybe I'm not using them in the most appropriate way/situation.

Anyone have link to good tips on using extension tubes?

Billiam

IMO handholding in general is virtually useless for macro or near-macro shots. Your DoF is usually so shallow that even the slightest front to back movement on your part can throw your intended subject out of focus. Remember that even if the VR/IS worked, it can only correct for up/down and left/right motions.

hrj

iTrader: (1)

waTSX

Were you not happy with their performance? I've been considering one for my 70-200 to give it some decent macro capability.

moeronn

I haven't tried it with the 70-200 yet. Only the 85 1.8 and 17-55. Maybe that's my problem.

Anyway, the main limitation on this is the working focusing range. Not only do you lose infinity focus, the working range is VERY narrow and not always easy to find. On the 17-55 with the 12mm tube, working range was somewhere around 8" - 20" - and only above 40mm focal length. (Note, these are guestimates, i didn't take any measurements.)

jupitersolo

I have really only used ext tubes on macro lenses. Using them on normal lenses has never given me what I wanted as to the real macro.

stogie1020

Bill, thanks for that explanation! Now I understand why the 800-1000mm true lenses are so costly. I found some afocal rigs for p+s cameras, but didn't see any for SLR cameras, although I am sure they exist. I will probably go the prime focus imaging route, with the 40D at ISO3200. Obviously, I will have to experiment a bit with this before "show time." We are trying to secure closer access, but no luck so far... I mean, this works all the time in the movies...

waTSX

I got the idea for the 70-200 from one of the Bryan Peterson books. He doesn't get true macro performance from his longer Nikkor lenses, but it greatly improves the minimum focusing distance and he comes up with some pretty cool shots without having to get too close to skittish critters. Obviously, you get great shallow DoF with those lenses also.

Anyway, I may be getting the EF 100 macro as a wedding gift anyway.

jupitersolo

Suite, wedding gift. I've tired tubes on normal lenses, I just haven't liked the results, so far. I used a 12mm on my 16-35 and 25mm on the 300mm while shooting flowers. I didn't like the images, but I'll try again sometime.

The Dougler

iTrader: (1)

Damn, your job sounds interesting.

stogie1020

The Dougler

iTrader: (1)

wait, your a ninja and detective?

stogie1020

Please don't show my face...

Billiam

Only when he's in a van down by the river.

Dan Martin

Maybe I shoot macros differently than most people, but I hardly ever use the focus ring to focus on the subject. I think of the focus ring as a "magnification ring". I set the magnification I want by turning the focus ring or by adding tubes, then I focus by moving the camera forward or backward. A tripod with a geared head is ideal when you're shooting something stationary, but if you're trying to track a bee or a skittish insect, sometimes you've got to go handheld.

I also like to use a monopod for macros because it's less cumbersome, and if I need to pick up the camera to track a moving subject, it acts like a mechanical stabilizer. I get about one stop of stabilization even without the monopod hitting the ground. I never would have thought of using it that way if I didn't discover it by accident.


I use tubes on my 70-200 fairly often, but tubes are pretty difficult to use on a zoom. You almost have to leave the zoom set to it's longest setting and gaffer tape it in place. If you don't, it gets pretty confusing. Tubes have a stronger effect on shorter lenses, so you can actually focus closer at 70mm than you can at 200mm. Because you can focus closer at the wide end, but the magnification is lower due to the decreased focal length, you actually can end up with the same framing as you would by shooting at 200mm only the background is busier.

See what I mean about confusing?

In other words, you can use tubes on a 70-200, but just set the zoom ring to one setting and leave it there. The main difference between the 70mm end and the 200mm end is the amount of background detail you capture. The 200mm end is smoother and gives you longer working distance, so I would just stick it there for most macro shots.

moeronn

I'll need to read that a few more times... but I get the jist of it.

And that's what I found on the 17-55. I put the 12 and 20 on it and found it was easier to move the camera, after I set the lens to 55mm. At 55m with the 20mm tube, I had the lens within 2-3" of what I was shooting (just doing test shots of stationary objects).

jupitersolo

That's the way I have shot macro before, mostly when doing handheld. I do it as if I'm shooting a gun. I allow for my natural body sway and breathing then shoot. Geared head is next on my list.

Dan Martin

I tried the tubes on the 17-55 and found it next to impossible to use, so I wouldn't spend too much time trying to get results there. Curiously, the 50mm primes seem to work well with tubes and are easier to wield. In either case, your subjects are going to be very very close to the front element at it's closest focus. The 50mm 1.8 with a full set of kenko tubes can actually focus on things that are touching the front of the lens. Getting any light on a subject that close is another trick altogether...

Dan Martin

I've enjoyed the Manfrotto 410 head since I bought it. I actually use it as my primary head unless weight is a factor, then I switch to the Acratech. I think my Manfrotto 410 head might need service on the tilt knob though. It's just not as tight as the other controls, which makes it a little rough for fine macro adjustments. I never notice it for landscape stuff, so I hope I can get it fixed.

The only geared heads on the market that I can find are the "small" (relatively) manfrotto 410, the BIG manfrotto 405, and the insanely expensive Arca Swiss Cube. I played with the Arca Cube at Vistek in Toronto one day and it is so beautifully machined and precise, but the price was out of this world. I wish there were a few more choices in the market because I use it so much and it's something I wouldn't mind upgrading at some point.

jupitersolo

They've got everybody under the ballhead spell, which isn't bad. But geared heads are needed.

Billiam

I'm a bit confused as to how a geared head such as the 410 or 405 would help with focusing macro shots. Isn't the geared motion moving the head in pan or tilt, not front to back? I alway thought that precise control of macro focus was pretty much the exclusive domain of focusing rails.

Dan Martin

Trying to be precise with a ballhead under high magnification is not easy. I find it much easier to turn a knob to fine tune my composition than to try unlocking a knob, repositioning the ball and relocking it. A focusing rail can be used with either head for fine focus. I don't have one, but it might be something to add down the line. For now, I've been just gently pulling back or pushing forward on the tripod to get the focus I need. It sounds kludgy but it works.

Evader

Does anyone have any thoughts on used lenses? I found two places which I know to have a large quantity of used equipment. Is there anything particular I should be looking for if considering a second-hand lens? I know the obvious would be scratches on the lens etc. but I wasn't sure if I should be looking for anything else either.

One shop I was told comes highly recommended has location in manhattan <http:/www.adorama.com> and then a local shop I went into tonight...

The local shop had an endless supply of used equipment but the one lens that caught my attention was the 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor Lens for $1050 used (new it's over $1600) I also have the option to rent lenses between $25-50 per day (price depends on the actual lens cost)

jupitersolo

I would match their prices up against www.keh.com, you also have a couple of places online to buy used http://www.fredmiranda.com has a buy and sell board and there's another nikonians or something like that. But these board have the same downfalls that you would with ebay more so and less so.

With being able to go to the shop you mentioned, I would think they should have no problem with you using the lens on your camera and see how it's does. Maybe take some shots with the lens you want, go home and look at them on the computer, then buy the lens. If they let you rent to buy, that would be good.

I was going to buy a used FE and the guy let me put it on and walk around outside for awhile shooting with it. I didn't buy it because I didn't like the FL of it.

Evader

Thanks again for the links Jupiter. I found a place online and spoke directly with the owner who seems very knowledgable and is a professional photographer himself.

http://lensprotogo.com/

No deposits required and shipping is included with all the lenses except for the super tele-photo lenses. His prices seem pretty reasonsable to I guess. I think I might try out the Nikkor Micro 105mm for a week ($65) before dropping $750 on it

stogie1020

Good Find Evader. I want to rent a 17-55 for an upcoming trip, and this looks a reasonable place. Thanks.

Evader

Stogie, I found another option you might want to also consider since you're on the westcoast.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/

stogie1020

Thanks!