Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)  (Read 40910 times)

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2016, 09:30:20 am »

Again, Michael, let's revisit p. 44 of your own Macro eBook, to refresh your memory of the differences, where basically you struggled with your pet lens in a non-studio situation:

  • "Single-Shot Live-Subject Macros with the Nikon D800E

    "Not sure why I am sharing this: It is not because these are acceptable results, but rather to discuss the challenges that the new D800E offers when it comes to manual focus. I was at an event for a few days, but not one I imagined I would be using macro lenses, so I only brought one, the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar, just as an afterthought. I also brought the Nikon 800E, although I was there to shoot with the Nikon D4 and the Nikkor 24- 70mm and the 70-200mm. Anyway…

    "In the early morning one day I had time for some macro shots using the D800E and the CV-125, so I took some single shot photos. It was just a little windy, so stacking on a rail would have been fruitless.

    "The results were anything but encouraging, not because there is anything wrong with the D800E that I can see, but because of my own lack of technique. There was not quite enough light for very high apertures, so the DOF was shallow and it shows. It was hard to get enough of the subject in focus to feel comfortable.

    "While most of the problems I ran into would be solved if I stacked focus (on a static subject), since I could create my own facsimile of DOF, taking one-off shots proved to me how critical the focus is with this new camera. It was frustrating to say the least. And, it is hard to see in the tiny LCD whether you really have the focus or not.

    "I should have brought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR lens. That would have helped. Trying to focus moving subjects with the CV- 125 in only medium light was painful. However, I can say this: The camera is great and even from these relatively unfocussed shots I can see that if I do my homework, that very high-quality shots are possible in the future. But this camera will separate the men from the boys (so to speak), and there is a real learning curve here for single-shot focus on live subjects. Ouch!

    "After this experience, I am not so quick to recommend this camera for everyone. It is going to be very painful for those without the 45 patience to focus this baby. Again, a VR auto-focus lens would help, and I have not tried to figure out whether my copy of the D800E has the right/left focus problems. Not sure how to do that. What is an easy test for that?

    "So my takeaway is embarrassment at my own technique, and the sense that I need a lot of light for one-offs, higher apertures, and that an autofocus lens would help a lot. I would want a tripod, even for these shots and, at least for now, I have to be ready for a workout. I felt clumsy with the D800E. This camera is demanding when it comes to focus. And as wonderful as this camera is, it appears to me at the moment that for this kind of work, it is a specialty camera, not a general camera, at least in my opinion.

    "Of course, I am still a little daunted by the experience, and I can only blame myself for the results. However, I am peaked to try it again soon.

    "All shots with the Nikon D800E, CV-125, and an aperture perhaps at f/5.6 or lower, not enough DOF for what was needed."

Again, you noted that having the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-VR would have served you better in the less-than-favorable circumstances you were faced with ... and that the "extra-resolution" and the "color-corectedness" of the Voightlander didn't matter ... if you couldn't nail the shot.

Let me (again) point out that those circumstances you faced were, literally, the proverbial "walk in the park" compared to legitimate wildlife photography ... climbing mountains, traversing the desert, standing in swamps, etc.

At this point, I realize you are going to default to measuring the lens only as a studio lens. That is just what you do.

But to those who actually do very little studio work, and plan on trying to nail great shots of arthropods in the wild, the Sigma 180 will give you Zeiss-comparable image quality ... plus every modern amenity to deal with less-than-favorable circumstances, offering better image-quality than any other macro lens that has comparable amenities.

Jack
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2016, 09:40:20 am »

I see how you try to control the discussion. I do use extension on the Otus lenses, and get very good results for the most part. And I will soon give you a report on the Sigma.

I suggest you stop trying to control what is talked about here and just listen to what folks like myself are pointing out.

If you want to limit the discussion ONLY to the complete set of parameters you like, well, there won't be much of a discussion, will there? Stop scolding us and just try talking with us. I have been willing to listen to you and even go so far as purchasing a lens that my mind tells me is not going to be that useful in my work. For instance, if you intend that only 1:1 lenses are to be discussed, then that is too restrictive for me.

I would like to discuss these ideas and I have the experience, but not if you can't open up a bit. I get your point that you like this particular lens and are dedicated to wildlife photography. Having done all kinds of wildlife photography myself, since 1956, with all kinds of lenses, in all kinds of places and countries, etc., just because I also do other kinds of nature photography than you do, including studio work, I don't need a lecture from you about it. 

I have written many books over many years, endlessly trying all kinds of things, many of them reported in books, blogs, videos, as I went along. Quoting stuff I said or used to believe is not helpful. I change as do you and as will you with the D810. I am here right now to discuss these things as I understand them in early 2016.

You are too desperate about all of this. We don’t all want to “nail shots” as you put it. Other views, too, are valuable to hear unless you just want to silence any view that conflicts with your own.

I suggest we drop all of this and let’s talk.   
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 10:04:36 am by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

muntanela

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
    • BRATA
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2016, 11:45:28 am »


I think that against the wind a plamp can be more useful than AF. The challenge with the wind is not only to focus on a fast moving object, but that it can move incredibly fast after the focusing.

In good weather, when it is calm out and the Michigan wind is not blowing, I am out in the yard, in the neighborhood, in the parks, but also in the fields, streams, meadowlands, and bogs with hip boots and these lenses, albeit on a tripod.

I have no experience of the Michigan wind :), but generally, if avoiding to go out during a windy day can be wise, not always is possible, you can have only that opportunity to shoot that object (e.g. a flower before the end of the anthesis).
Avoiding shooting under the rain isn't wise, you miss interesting shots (perhaps less perfect but certainly more valuable) and intense sensations and impressions. We are made of recollections.

Quote from: John Koerner link=topic=107134.msg887062#msg887062 da-te=1454076976
How about weather sealing[/b] (for those who actually venture outside the studio)?

I shoot flowers in the rain (moderate and even less moderate) with my old Elmarit 100 macro (1:1 with ELPRO, front edge of the lens hood only 7 cm to the object) and a chamois leather cloth on it  without visible negative consequences. Perhaps against the rain could be more useful a front element deeply recessed in the barrel and a good lens hood.
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2016, 11:52:34 am »


I shoot flowers in the rain (moderate and even less moderate) with my old Elmarit 100 macro (1:1 with ELPRO, front edge of the lens hood only 7 cm to the object) and a chamois leather cloth on it  without visible negative consequences. Perhaps against the rain could be more useful a front element deeply recessed in the barrel and a good lens hood.

I have the 100mm Leica Macro (and the Elpro), which I have converted to Nikon mount. It is one of the best corrected lenses (APO) that I know of for macro or close-up, with an incredible focus throw, something like 720 degrees.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Robert DeCandido PhD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
    • http://www.BirdingBob.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #144 on: January 29, 2016, 04:46:44 pm »

"legitimate wildlife photography ... climbing mountains, traversing the desert, standing in swamps, etc."

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 ::)
Logged

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2016, 03:48:47 am »

Well the BBC thinks studio work is :  'editorially and ethically justified' in some circumstances.

This was a row over a birth sequence cut into ""legitimate wildlife photography" I particularly like one comment: "I'm outraged to find out the soundtrack for #FrozenPlanet was added after filming. I thought they took a full orchestra with them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950895/Frozen-Planet-Sir-David-Attenborough-denies-misleading-viewers-over-faked-polar-bear-birth.html

But they don't disclose the lens they used  8)

Knowing the BBC this link may not work in all the UK Dominions  :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16137704


Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #146 on: February 03, 2016, 09:13:35 am »

As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.

I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.

Although the lens is f/2.8, this will not be very usable except at infinity, although the lens is designed for macro work. This is due to what is called “effective aperture.” As with many lenses, the moment we focus close with the Sigma, the actual aperture jumps to f/4, not helpful for the best bokeh. I like f/2.8 or preferably better, like f/2 or f/1.2.

The lens is sharp enough when stopped down to f/4, but just a little soft wide-open. The lens has autofocus, something I seldom use in close-up photography. This lens has OS (Optical Stabilization), which means you can use it handheld, but at 3.6 lb. (1.63 kg), this is not something I would want to do too much of.

One very nice thing: it has is a detachable tripod foot/collar that is a pleasure to use, one that allows changing from horizontal to vertical format in seconds. It also helps distribute the weight on your camera mount. It does not have an aperture ring, which I don’t like, on principle. However, it does have 9 aperture blades, and good bokeh.

At 180-degrees, the lens allows me to stand back and still be close-in, which is a big help for live-critter action. It has auto-focus, which makes it helpful for fast-moving insects, etc.

Will I use this lens? Not for what I usually do. I will consider using it on a gimbal (or tripod) with its autofocus for flying insect and bird shots… perhaps. I do this now with the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR lens, which weights 1.58 lb. (720 g), works well, goes to 1:1, has 9 (rounded) blades, a minimum focus range of 12-inches (30.48 cm), and f/2.8, but has no collar or image stabilization.

This lens IMO, which is sturdy and well-built, is for the wildlife photographer who wants to capture moving critters, although it really is too heavy for that work. Most of what it does, I don’t need. What it lacks is why I use other lenses, like a longer focus throw, a bit faster, not totally sharp wide open, better “micro-contrast,” for example.

Nikon D810, Sigma 180mm APO Macro, Zerene Stacker  A studio shot, yes, but it is mid-winter here.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:10:16 am by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #147 on: February 03, 2016, 12:49:29 pm »

As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.

I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.

With an autofocus lens, one can adjust focusing in very small and reproducible steps via software. Have you tried this approach?

Regards,

Bill

Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #148 on: February 03, 2016, 12:53:52 pm »

As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.

I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.

Good morning, and thanks for taking the time to review.

If you will recall, I did not create an article about "the finest macro-stacking lens." (You had already done that.)

I created an article about the finest wildlife macro lens, a concept with which you are still struggling to keep in focus ...



Although the lens is f/2.8, this will not be very usable except at infinity, although the lens is designed for macro work. This is due to what is called “effective aperture.” As with many lenses, the moment we focus close with the Sigma, the actual aperture jumps to f/4, not helpful for the best bokeh. I like f/2.8 or preferably better, like f/2 or f/1.2.

The Sigma did not do this on my Canon (though I have noticed it does so on my Nikon, another feature I don't like about Nikon).

Regardless, the truth is f/2 is useless for wildlife macro shooting. (As you found out when trying to do so in your article.)

Wildlife photography is typically 1-image photography, where you don't want your f/stop any wider then f/4-f/5.6.

At this aperture, you will find the Sigma is equal to, or superior to, the Voightlander (with all the amenities previously-discussed).



The lens is sharp enough when stopped down to f/4, but just a little soft wide-open. The lens has autofocus, something I seldom use in close-up photography. This lens has OS (Optical Stabilization), which means you can use it handheld, but at 3.6 lb. (1.63 kg), this is not something I would want to do too much of.

One very nice thing: it has is a detachable tripod foot/collar that is a pleasure to use, one that allows changing from horizontal to vertical format in seconds. It also helps distribute the weight on your camera mount. It does not have an aperture ring, which I don’t like, on principle. However, it does have 9 aperture blades, and good bokeh.

Exactly.

If you have your camera on a tripod, and find a critter to shoot, you can instantly adjust your composition with the tripod ring, nail the focus, and trip a cable (hands-off) and obtain a razor-sharp image ... where the bokeh will be very smooth also.



At 180-degrees, the lens allows me to stand back and still be close-in, which is a big help for live-critter action. It has auto-focus, which makes it helpful for fast-moving insects, etc.

Exactly the point of my article again: wildlife macro photography.



Will I use this lens? Not for what I usually do. I will consider using it on a gimbal (or tripod) with its autofocus for flying insect and bird shots… perhaps. I do this now with the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR lens, which weights 1.58 lb. (720 g), works well, goes to 1:1, has 9 (rounded) blades, a minimum focus range of 12-inches (30.48 cm), and f/2.8, but has no collar or image stabilization.

I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be able to replace the Voightlander for studio stacks.

What I know it will do is be able to outperform the Voightlander in the field, getting shots the Voightlander would cause you to miss, and easily competing with the Voightlander in quality from f/4 to f/8, which are more wildlife-realistic macro apertures than single-shot images at f/2.

Again, this is why you yourself were yearning for the Nikon 105mm (which I rate #2), when you had the Voightlander, when you yourself were in a park trying to take 1-image photos.



This lens IMO, which is sturdy and well-built, is for the wildlife photographer who wants to capture moving critters, although it really is too heavy for that work. Most of what it does, I don’t need. What it lacks is why I use other lenses, like a longer focus throw, a bit faster, not totally sharp wide open, better “micro-contrast,” for example.

It is not heavy on a tripod :)

Also as mentioned in my article, for those who only hand-hold, the Nikon 105 might be the preferred option. For those who use a tripod, and want the reach, the Sigma hands down.

As repeated, the lens is for the wildlife macro photographer who wants every "wildlife-ready" feature available on a true 1:1 macro lens, with the excellent reach, a tripod collar for instant composition, that is also built tough, weather-sealed, etc.

The lens was not designed for the studio shooter, who wants to do multi-image stacks of immobile objects, so it is ludicrous to rate it like that (esp. on a Wildlife Macro Lens thread).


Nikon D810, Sigma 180mm APO Macro, Zerene Stacker  A studio shot, yes, but it is mid-winter here.

Lovely :)
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #149 on: February 03, 2016, 01:17:07 pm »


I created an article about the finest wildlife macro lens, a concept with which you are still struggling to keep in focus ...

COMMENT:

I have written scores of articles, and you keep quoting just one. You write like the political talking heads, very unfair.

At this aperture, you will find the Sigma is equal to, or superior to, the Voightlander (with all the amenities previously-discussed).

COMMENT: I seldom use it at that aperture, which is the whole point.

I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be able to replace the Voightlander for studio stacks.

COMMENT: Correct. We do different kind of wildlife photography in the field, not just the studio.


What I know it will do is be able to outperform the Voightlander in the field, getting shots the Voightlander would cause you to miss, and easily competing with the Voightlander in quality from f/4 to f/8, which are more wildlife-realistic macro apertures than single-shot images at f/2.

COMMENT: You assumptions are about other's ability are unreal.

Again, this is why you yourself were yearning for the Nikon 105mm (which I rate #2), when you had the Voightlander, when you yourself were in a park trying to take 1-image photos. ';

COMMENT: One incident. I have used the Voigtlander to do hundreds of thousands of photos IN THE WILD, not just in the studio.


It is not heavy on a tripod :)

COMMENT: Well the lens, camera, and tripod are indeed heavy. Try walking five miles with them.

The lens was not designed for the studio shooter, who wants to do multi-image stacks of immobile objects, so it is ludicrous to rate it like that (esp. on a Wildlife Macro Lens thread).

COMMENT: You almost always overstate your case, which lacks fairness. I suggest that you actually might try using the CV-125. I have stacked many critters in the wild.

The Sigma 180mm is an OK lens. I agree with a lot of what you say. But trying to put down other lenses, which many of us can use just fine in the wild, does nothing IMO to encourage me to use your "favorite lens." I have many lenses that I use, each a little different as to use. Now I have the Sigma 180 too, which I will use, but its sheer weight does not recommend it.

Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

muntanela

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
    • BRATA
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #150 on: February 03, 2016, 03:19:22 pm »

I'm waiting for someone to tell me about the performance of the Venus Laowa 15mm. I'm very attracted to wide-angle close-ups (if not true macro). I think that it would be a real plus for shooting flowers in the mountains.
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #151 on: February 03, 2016, 03:38:33 pm »

I'm waiting for someone to tell me about the performance of the Venus Laowa 15mm. I'm very attracted to wide-angle close-ups (if not true macro). I think that it would be a real plus for shooting flowers in the mountains.

I love this lens. No, it is not this, that, and the other thing a lens is supposed to be, but I use it a lot. And that is what a lens is all about, use. You can push the end right up to a subject until it is all but touching. It is sharp... enough... and it photo is good enough. I have a bunch of fisheyes, but this is the one I usually use, but I am a close-up photographer. It is not expensive either. Shot with the Nikon D810.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

muntanela

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
    • BRATA
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #152 on: February 03, 2016, 05:32:18 pm »

Thanks Michael, your opinion is important to me. I think I would use it often, precisly because I have been missing something like it.

The focus in your photo seems to be on the second flower, am I right?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 05:40:34 pm by muntanela »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #153 on: February 03, 2016, 08:24:35 pm »

I have written scores of articles, and you keep quoting just one. You write like the political talking heads, very unfair. 


That you've written scores of articles (having nothing to do with this exact subject) is irrelevant.

I keep quoting that article, as it's the only one you've written, directly dealing with this subject, which makes it absolutely fair.

In the article to which I refer, you admit you were under-equipped with the Voightlander in a non-studio setting (your words, your article).

Nothing could be more germane to this discussion Michael ...



COMMENT: I seldom use it at that aperture, which is the whole point.

WRONG

You keep missing the whole point: this article isn't about "you"; it's about macro lenses for wildlife photography.

Go back up to the top of the page and re-read the last line of your own article:

  • "All shots with the Nikon D800E, CV-125, and an aperture perhaps at f/5.6 or lower, not enough DOF for what was needed."

Your own article reinforces everything I've said. Nobody shoots f/2.0 macro shots in the wild. Not even you.

By your own admission, "anything lower than f/5.6 is not enough."

What more do I have to do to prove my point than by using your own words in a published article?



COMMENT: Correct. We do different kind of wildlife photography in the field, not just the studio.

I have yet to see a single wildlife shot from you.



COMMENT: You assumptions are about other's ability are unreal.

Exactly backwards: your assumptions about wildlife photography are unreal.

This is why (again, in your article, quoted back up at the top of the page) you were so stumped when your prize lens failed to perform.



COMMENT: One incident. I have used the Voigtlander to do hundreds of thousands of photos IN THE WILD, not just in the studio.

Hundreds of thousands?

And yet all you can post are photos of common flies, bees, and plants in your garden? :o

(Along with an article admitting you were "stumped" at how to photograph a beetle in a garden setting? :o)

I don't believe you have "hundreds of thousands" of legitimate wildlife macro photos, taken with the Voightlander lens.
(I actually doubt you have a single such photo.)

My belief is that all you've ever taken with the Voightlander are shots in your studio and garden ... or, maybe, a local park.



COMMENT: Well the lens, camera, and tripod are indeed heavy. Try walking five miles with them.

I have.

I sling my tripod over my shoulder and walk.

Not a big deal.



COMMENT: You almost always overstate your case, which lacks fairness. I suggest that you actually might try using the CV-125. I have stacked many critters in the wild.

LMAO, the guy who states he has "hundreds of thousands" of wildlife macro images taken with his Voightlander 125 APO ... and yet who can only post photos of garden flowers, flies, and bees ... is accusing "me" of overstating my case

Thanks for the laugh, Michael

Jack
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2016, 08:36:59 pm »


LMAO, the guy who states he has "hundreds of thousands" of wildlife macro images taken with his Voightlander 125 APO ... and yet who can only post photos of garden flowers, flies, and bees ... is accusing "me" of overstating my case

Thanks for the laugh, Michael

Jack

You forget that I stack photos, sometimes 100 layers deep, so yes, hundreds of thousands of photographs. I am not going to waste any more time with you.

Here are a few wildlife photos of critters I took:

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/3/3/3339ef0cdc6ddf82/Small_Worlds_--_Sentient_Beings_Vol-1.pdf?c_id=8358140&expiration=1454551550&hwt=b8a6ad711276b5d9f971fa283e1159d4


« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 09:36:43 pm by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #155 on: February 04, 2016, 03:11:13 pm »

I was going to leave this alone, but I am not.

So here goes:

You forget that I stack photos, sometimes 100 layers deep, so yes, hundreds of thousands of photographs.

So you're trying to say that you take 100-layer, stacked images taken of flighty subjects in the wild?

Whatever you say, Michael



I am not going to waste any more time with you.

Trust me when I tell you, my own time has been wasted as well.

This started off as a good natured thread topic, but you kept trying to digress into your own little territory, flower stacks at home, completely missing the point of the topic.

I am sorry if you feel embarrassed by "overstating" your own case, and having your own article refute everything you have said here on this thread topic.

Your entire struggle here is the simple fact that, not once, have you kept your eye on the ball and dealt with the subject: wildlife macro imagery (which, I agree, makes this entire diatribe a waste of time).

You had your own say, on your own thread topic (which I gave you the respect to leave alone), but you and your ego just could not allow another person (me) to offer another perspective, on another thread topic, dealing with another lens offering advantages (to another kind of macro shooting: wildlife) the features for which your pet studio lens simply (and utterly) lacks.

The very fact that you couldn't get results from your own pet lens, in non-controlled situations, as described in your own article, should have been silencing ... but (unfortunately) it was not :-[



Here are a few wildlife photos of critters I took:
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/3/3/3339ef0cdc6ddf82/Small_Worlds_--_Sentient_Beings_Vol-1.pdf?c_id=8358140&expiration=1454551550&hwt=b8a6ad711276b5d9f971fa283e1159d4

Of the 53 images provided in that link, I would say only 6 were semi-impressive, and (maybe) the same amount could be properly classified as wildlife imagery.
(The last 4 were your best.)

The rest appeared to be the common garden photography of a beginner.

I honestly think you have a real knack for studio-stack flower photography ... and it shows.

And I honestly still think what you call "wildlife" macro photography is actually early-morning garden photography ... that you delude yourself into thinking is something other than what it really is.
(Slugs, snails, bees, flies, garden orbs, etc.? :-\)

Jack

Also, and with no malice stated, there was a massive quality degradation in the .pdf format of your eBook. Even when I downloaded it, every single image looked like 500 px images blown up to 1920 px wide.
It would be more helpful if you would post the original, individual high-res images of those "hundreds of thousands" of 100-image wildlife macro stacks you say you have.
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #156 on: February 04, 2016, 03:22:19 pm »

I can see that you can't resist this kind of ridiculous personal attack. Enough of you.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Christopher Sanderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2687
    • photopxl.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)
« Reply #157 on: February 04, 2016, 04:23:26 pm »

Enough of this...
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up