Which macro "method" gives most DOF?

Jeff Pritchard · Jun 30, 2003

I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

mikecol · Jun 30, 2003

Hi Jeff,

I am interested in the 'correct' answer too, but I'll give you my take for now:

For the same subject size the focal length tends to cancel with distance. The only real effect is f-number. The problem is that when you stop down too much you start getting diffraction limited (where even the sharpest spot on the picture is not sharp). In order to minimize diffraction you don't want extension.

I think choices 1-3 all start having internal extension when the magnification gets larger. You can tell this by looking up the effective f-number for a give magnification in the users manual (this is loss of light and extension).

Choice 5 uses extension.

Choice 6 increases magnification (not needed) and also 'magnifies' the diffraction.

This leaves choice 4 as the best because the 500D is in front of the lens and 'before' the aperature.

Hope this is correct

Mike

Jeff Pritchard said:
I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

Ted B.47613 · Jun 30, 2003

Same subject, same magnification, same aperture, same sensor size, same DOF, regardless of lens.

The best way to maximize DOF is to zoom out and crop in.

Ted

Jeff Pritchard said:
I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

--

Hide not your talents, they for use were made. What's a sun-dial in the shade? Benjamin Franklin

http://svphoto.us My Website

Eric Sterns · Jun 30, 2003

If the subject is the same size in each shot then they will all have the same DOF, assuming that effective aperture stays the same. The only way to get more is to crop.

Jeff Pritchard said:
I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

Wayne J · Jun 30, 2003

If the same size subject fills the frame, then I think DOF is merely a matter of f-stop. The perspective is going to be different, and the overall image quality is going more sharp or less sharp, but at the same f-stop, the DOF ought to be the same. (But maybe someone who really knows will tell all of us.)
--
Wayne

mikecol · Jun 30, 2003

Hi Eric,

I think I agree with you

Doesn't the effective aperture change for all choices except number 4? (Assuming higher magnifications)

Mike

Eric Sterns said:
Jeff Pritchard said:

I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

mikecol · Jun 30, 2003

Mike

Eric Sterns said:
Jeff Pritchard said:

I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

Robert Scultz · Jun 30, 2003

from my E10 days, where I had forgotten my macro closeup attachment,
I had to live with the wideangle,....
the wideangles gets you more DOF,...
but they are not great for macro,

there are some sigmas what do 1:4 + crop factor, 1:4 / 1.5 plus ext, or closeup....

if it's big it makes sense, but than again, if it's big, why not a tripod ?

cheers, Robert Schultz
--
http://www.RobsPhoto.com

ShootingD60 · Jun 30, 2003

converters or extension tubes don't make a difference methinks
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)

Eric Sterns · Jun 30, 2003

If you could obtain a perfect diopter that would be the way to go. Unfortunately that's not the case. I think it's pretty much a wash. Extension increases the effects of diffraction, diopters put more glass in the way, decreasing sharpness and contrast, and increasing CA. Shrugs

mikecol said:
Eric Sterns said:

Jeff Pritchard said:

I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

Eric Sterns · Jun 30, 2003

Wide angle macro does not give more depth of field versus using a longer lens, assuming the magnification and effective aperture stay constant between the two. It just doesn't. All wide angle gets you is a more cluttered background, and less working distance.

Robert Schultz said:
from my E10 days, where I had forgotten my macro closeup attachment,
I had to live with the wideangle,....
the wideangles gets you more DOF,...
but they are not great for macro,
there are some sigmas what do 1:4 + crop factor, 1:4 / 1.5 plus
ext, or closeup....

if it's big it makes sense, but than again, if it's big, why not a
tripod ?

cheers, Robert Schultz
--
http://www.RobsPhoto.com

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

mikecol · Jun 30, 2003

Eric Sterns said:
mikecol said:

Eric Sterns said:

Jeff Pritchard said:

I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

Would any of these methods give significantly more DOF than any other?

thanks,
jp

===================================================
Words to live by:
It's not about the stuff, never argue with an idiot, there is no
spoon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

WalterK · Jun 30, 2003

to stop down, at whatever focal length you shoot. The only way to do this at close distances, especially where your shadow or the camera's gets in the way, is to use a flash, or a tripod with long exposures. You can mount your flash on a bracket, an arm, or you can get a ring flash such as the MR-14EX, which lets you vary the ratio between the two light tubes to control/model shadows.

With a flash, you can stop down to f22 or more. You still won't have immense depth of field, but you'l get most of your bug or flower...

Jeff Pritchard said:
I know that all methods of getting macro shots suffer from lack of
depth of field, but I was wondering while looking at another thread
whether or not there are variations in DOF for the same image size
when captured using different methods and/or focal lengths.

For instance, to shoot a frame filling image of a small flower with:
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a 180 mm macro
4) a 70-200 L IS with 500D diopter lens
5) a 70-200 L IS with extension tubes
6) any of the above with a 2X TC

--
Walter K

Search

Which macro "method" gives most DOF?

Jeff Pritchard

Well-known member

mikecol

Senior Member

Ted B.47613

Senior Member

Eric Sterns

Guest

Wayne J

Well-known member

mikecol

Senior Member

mikecol

Senior Member

Robert Scultz

Guest

ShootingD60

Senior Member

Eric Sterns

Guest

Eric Sterns

Guest

mikecol

Senior Member

WalterK

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts