Dream lens not made



  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,193Member
    Going to DX will not give you more DOF. However, moving the camera back to frame like DX will.

    Common mis-perception.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    @spraynpray I wouldn't hesitate getting the 105 macro. It is incredible sharp and the extra stops and VR are great for low light. It works really well with the focus shift. Cropping and/or switching to DX mode on the 850 will get you somewhat close to the 200. The autofocusing is significantly faster on the 850 than the 810. It is one of my favorite lens.

    I will use a reflector or a large tarp to block the wind on windy days with some degree of success but the ones that are constantly on the move is a completely different matter.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    Yes Westie, the DoF is the same, I agree. I also know the distance to subject is the main problem which is why I'd like an updated 200 BUT, when I move that far back, the light from my flashes becomes more direct and so the detail (like hair-scales round the wings) are less distinct so I am hoping for a compromise in that area with the 105. I have bought one now, so the coming weeks will tell. I'll post results on PAD.

    Thanks for the advice Vic. Another method that works well depending on the species is to go out for them later in the day just before they roost. You can take liberties with them then, and the wind often dies down - like this one:

    Marbled White at sunset

    Full res here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spraynpray/28291662986/sizes/o/

    This bears the closest scrutiny - D7100 and 60 2.8 D. I have no doubt the sharpest of lenses. My G (selling) is noticeably less sharp, hopefully the 105 will be closer to the old D.
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 889Member
    I guess a tc would help with depth of field for macro. Or does it affect the minimal distance?

    I have a 150/2.8 macro, but have almost replaced it with the 300/4 pf for plants and butterflies. Maybe it would work even better with a tc.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    @snakebunk : Take a look at that shot of mine at 100% by clicking on the link - you cannot get close to that detail with a telephoto.
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 889Member
    Yes, it is very good. I don't do much close photography but below is one example of the 300/4. The good thing for me is that it is a lense I bring with me for birds, but it is of course not a true macro.

  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,428Member
    Think we will get an affordable FX ultrawide zoom similar to the very nice 10-20mm AF-P DX? That would be high on my list.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,193Member
    How about putting something on your flash to soften the light Spraynpray?
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    That shot was back-lit by available light at sunset Westie, but a modifier is something I am just thinking about as I will be further away from the subject with the 105 so the light will be 'harder'. With the 60mm G, I was so close that the flash heads were often each side of the subject so I don't think looked 'hard'. I have a couple of Fongs I may use and they MAY also have the bonus effect of improving the CLS IR coupling in bright light. I do get problems on the most sunny days even with the sensors pointing optimally.
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 889Member
    I would like to add one thing to my dream lens, the 500/4 pf with built in converter: a built in polarizer filter (that can be engaged when needed)
  • flipflip Posts: 111Member
    Agree with WestEndFoto on both counts: 1. 400mm F5.6 with at least .25 life size limited focus breathing, flourite glass, VR, less than 3 LBs. ,and 2: 50MM 1.4E with outstanding performance, very limited CA wide open perhaps with VR...or updated 60MM Micro F2 life size imaging with NO FOCUS BREATHING. VR helpful for non-macro magnification with great resolution wide open.
Sign In or Register to comment.