Macro Flowers, crit crit crit

Alright so I want to get much better at macro photography. I do not have a macro lens yet. Planning on getting the canon 100mm macro. Unfortunately I have to resort to my canon 75-300 f4-5.6 III. I know that these are not the best, but I want to know what I can do to make my shots better for the time being, and also once I get the 100mm.


Rebel XS, Av Mode, Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM, 1/1000, F/ 5.6, 280mm, ISO 200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.45/IMG_5F00_2482.jpg[/img]


Rebel XS, Av Mode, Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM, 1/1600, F/ 5.6, 240mm, ISO 200[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.45/IMG_5F00_2558.jpg[/img]


Rebel XS, Av Mode, Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM, 1/640, F/ 5.7, 255mm, ISO 100[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.45/IMG_5F00_2615.jpg[/img]

Thanks in advance for all your comments and crit.

Oh and BTW, all were shot RAW and edited in DPP. Increased sharpness, saturation, and contrast.

I like the first one the most. How did you get such a bokeh with f/5.6? how far was the background and what is this background anyway?

you've certainly gotten the a lot of milage out of that lens. more milage than i thought possible.. i echo oren, how was that bokeh possible?


anyways.. generally speaking i hate flower shots.. but the first one's pretty darn good.

Nice, great colours.

A micro lens allows you to focus at a shorter distance (Closer to the subject for magnification) and the edge to edge sharpness tend to be sharper (flat field focus).Other that these basic advantages over other lens the results will be <span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]similar.The closer you get to the subject the shorter the depth of field.


So, what are you trying to achieve with a micro lens?





Your photos as shown above / below (#2 and #3) look good.





Bob

The backgroundon the first shot was a good 50 feet away or more, so thats why I got such bokeh. I believe that it is a house; I cannot remember for sure which angle this shot was at because I took shots from many angles, but if my memory serves me correctly the other backgrounds were either trees or sky and were much much farther away.


Bob: Of the top of my head, three things I want out of the macro lens is: shorter MFD/higher magnification, edge to edge sharpness (as you stated), higher native color saturation, and the shorter DOF. With my current lens I have to be 4.9ft away from my subject. I do not like being that far away during macro. Just like Atticus said, I have gotten a lot of mileage out of this lens, more than most people would think, but it takes so much more work to do so than it would on the 100m macro for not even equal or better results.

I would rather be doing wildlife or macro photography of insects more, but I am just not finding that many insects out. I am probably not looking that well. The weather definetly iscoordinating, unlike the rest of the country. Southern California weather helps in that department. Maybe I am just not looking close enough because I do see insects still, just not enough. On my last excursion which only lasted about an hour I encountered a stink beetle and arollie pollie. I guess I just have to look harder.

powers_brent


The Canon 100 micro is a very good lens, but you may be disappointed with the lens' depth of field (DOF) when you shootvery close to the subject.What you are currently doing at 4.9 feet, is giving you a very long DOF and looks great.


Bob