This image is an example of using a 300mm lens at it's minimum focusing distance: wide open @ 4.5'. The relatively close focusing distance is what accounts for the very shallow depth of field and selective focus. Long lenses compress scenes like this, where the red is literally in a different garden across the grounds, creating a soft color palette around the sharp part of the flower. Also, worthy of note is that you really don't need to make sure the out of focusness is only behind the subject. The large out of focus flower to the lower right is in front of the main subject, but appears as soft as the background flowers. What is important is that there be some distance between the sharp flower and the others (in back of and in front of the subject). Even though I use an unaltered 300mm f/4 lens for this shot, I'll mostly add attachments, such as extension tubes, close up diopter, and teleconverter, depending on what I'm looking to do. NOTE: When shooting wide open, I use autofocus to find an edge. This ensures even minimal sharpness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Wow, I never thought of using a long lens for close up shots like this. I learn so much from reading your blogs, and posts on fb. Thank you.
Hi Tony, love your blog, and although I do not shoot a whole lot of flowers, your work is really attracting me...my favourite flower is The Rose...do you have any recent shots of Roses? Do you use the macro lens much for flowers?
Tony- Thanks for doing this blog- already learned some things!! Lovely pictures.
Tony: Do you feel the long 2.8 lenses with or w/o a dopter give better/softer backgrounds than the 105 macro, for instance?
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
I use a macro lens, telephoto lens, extension tubes, diopters, tele-converters, etc, whatever gives me what I need.
Barbara: It all depends on the image and how far the foregrounds and backgrounds are to the subject.
Tony, thanks for starting the flower blog. I'm lost on what you meant with this: "NOTE: ... This ensures even minimal sharpness." What is "even minimal sharpness"?
Canonizer: how about leaving out the word, "even?"
Unfortunately, that didn't help either :) Whatever you're saying in your "NOTE" comment, I'm just not getting. You're shooting wide open, you're focusing on an edge, and you're getting minimal sharpness. And ...
Canonizer: I just use autofocus to insure that I get something sharp when shooting wide open. There's a pretty good chance that I'll miss if focusing manually.
Tony, thanks for clarifying. Got it.
Hello Tony from Scotland. Just came to your blog today courtesty of a Nik email and am loving it! I would love to see and compare the different effects of this sort of shot with both a teleconverter and extension tubes.
The differences can be minimal, as there are many ways to get the same results. But, in regards to your specific comments. Teleconverters magnify the image, for example a 1.7x teleconverter on a 105mm macro lens will go from 1:1 to 1.7:1 going greater than life size some light loss, so the image may appear darker in the viewer. Extension tubes allow for closer focusing also, but may be able to get a bit more magnification, perhaps getting the same magnification as the TC, and getting even greater magnification if you stack them. There is light loss using tubes, also, as a TC and tubes push the lens away from the camera body. Tubes are a much less expensive alternative than a TC.
Post a Comment