Advice for a macro photography kit

John Koerner said:

gardenersassistant said:

Is there a link to some other macro images missing here, or are you referring to your two images above (being much, much more pleasant) in relation to John K's image further above?

Click to expand...

I only posted 2.

John Koerner said:

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

Click to expand...

What I got rid of was Canon APS-C cameras (with the lowest sensor rating), Canon MP-E 65, which dramatically loses sharpness after 3:1, the Canon MT-24 Twinlight, and using DIY diffusers.

I already explained what replaced these with. You can also have a moment of clarity, and click my Gear List. As a veteran poster, you should know this.

John Koerner said:

Could you explain the mechanism please by which variation in the distance between the light source and the subject causes variation in the colour recorded from the subject.

Is it the distance between the subject and the flash or the distance between the subject and the nearest (to the subject) surface of the diffuser (or some other distance) that determines the degree of colour change?

Click to expand...

No, I am not a physicist. Maybe a rocket scientist could explain to you that the closer the flash, the more intense the light, and they harder to diffuse. Or maybe you could just use common sense?

John Koerner said:

Would I be right in thinking that this phenomenon of distance-related colour change means that the images captured by everyone who is using a twin flash which mounts on the front of the lens are inevitably polluted by unnatural colours?

Click to expand...

Yes. Most veteran macro shooters I know no longer use the TwinLight Flash (of any brand) for this very reason.

John Koerner said:

Could you advise please on the subject to light source distance at which this colour-changing phenomenon ceases to be significant.

Click to expand...

Could you please stop asking me patronizing questions?

John Koerner said:

Would I be right in thinking that the effects of this distance-related colour change cannot be corrected by means of altering the white balance?

Click to expand...

Yes. And no.

While it is true that white balance can be adjusted, it's also true that doing so cannot correct everything. In other words, you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, but you can correct small problems.

Otherwise, people could take photos in the middle of the day, and turn it into a sunset in post (as an extreme example). Even if some Photoshop genius could do this, it's a lot of extra work.

It's much better just to take the shot in optimal lighting to begin with. Or to use optimal light sources (High CRI Phosphor LED Light), rather than the archaic MP-24 TwinFlash lights, with gym socks over them to diffuse.

Of the many macro shooters I know who have used twin lights, most no longer do so. Most now use a single flash, oriented much further back, with the light spread out over one, much larger, common concave diffuser.

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time on this helpful reply.

John Koerner said:

gardenersassistant said:

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

Click to expand...

With this:









Camera Upgrade: D500
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro 2x APO (Infinity to 1x up to 2x)
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (Infinity to 2.5x up to 5x)
Flash Upgrade: SB-700 AF Speedlight
Diffuser Upgrade: Imported from specialist in Malaysia
Macro Rail: Hejnar Photo 50mm Micrometer Adjusting Macro Rail

The flash is much further back away from the subject, the diffuser spreads the light across the subject much more evenly. The greater working distance means subject less likely to fly away.

If you're baiting bees, you can get away with getting super-close, but if you're shooting various wildlife, it's helpful to have more working distance.

With all that said, I normally don't like to use flash at all. I have 3 different, imported diffusers (various iterations of the above), but to my eye, taking single shots w/ flash @ f/8 to f/16, just "looks different" to me, even on my own rig.

I prefer natural light, and stacking with a micrometer rail (for DOF), as it retains more micro-contrast and detail, while leaving a really creamy bokeh. There are certain subjects of course that you just can't stack, which is when I deploy a diffused flash.

But to say, "Don't get a 100mm," is preposterous ... it just depends on what you're after. The Laowa not only is sharper than almost any macro, it goes 2:1, and it has better CA control also.

If you want to go over 2:1, then use the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (or whatever your equivalent is).

If you're shooting w/ flash @ f/16, it's all about the same. But if you're stacking @ f/2.8 to f/4, the sharper and better the lens is, wide-open, the more you notice.

I can only think of 3 macro lenses that are razor-sharp @ f/2.8, and two of them only go 1:1. Most macro lenses aren't sharp wide-open, they peak @ f/5.6 to f/8. That's okay if you're shooting single images.

Click to expand...

That is very informative. Thank you.

It looks like we take a somewhat similar approach to diffusion, although I have for several years used a twin flash rather than the single flash that I used before that.



I prefer to work hand-held and prefer to use natural light when feasible, which is all the time for flowers etc and occasionally for larger invertebrates. I prefer to use 6K video for focus stacking flowers etc.

I have only rarely stacked insects, but I have it in mind to try it again, perhaps, this season, probably also with video, using an LED light, or natural light. I'll need to use a tripod for this.

I used to use a tripod a lot but now much prefer to work hand-held. One reason for this is that my invertebrate subjects tend to only settle briefly/move around/be on surfaces which are moving in the breeze.

For flowers etc I prefer the compositional responsiveness and flexibility that I can achieve working hand-held, sometimes necessarily one-handed to reach awkwardly placed subjects.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

I can't speak for other formats, but I do find the Olympus setup to be very versatile.

E-M1 II with 60mm gives 90 mm working distance at 1:1, with focus bracketing for 99(? It may be more) frames, and in-camera stacking for 15 frames.

In addition, you can use cheap extension tubes with electronic pass-through to get greater magnification, while still maintaining autofocus and stacking/bracketing.

And, when combined with the olympus TC1.4 teleconverter, you can get ~2.5 magnification, with autofocus, and stacking/bracketing with a working distance of ~65 mm.

When combined with a small diffuser and either the standard flash or an FL-300, then it is also a very compact system that you can take as part of your everyday carry.





And finally, the pre-burst pro-capture mode allows for some truly difficult shots.

Also there's a good thread here, showing different macro rigs. Mine is the first one. With the extender tubes and the TC, it's basically the same, but the lens + tubes + tc is a bit (~50 mm) longer.

When I first posted my question I wasn't expecting so many and diverse answers (neither so passionate!).

When I began my research, I was looking for the one and only best macro kit. I would purchase it and use it for many years. I realize now that this was a very naive idea.

Many thanks for all your answers, I'm learning a lot

Many thanks for the link to that thread, Martin. I searched for something like that but couldn't find it.

gardenersassistant said:

That is very informative. Thank you.

Click to expand...

You bet.

gardenersassistant said:

It looks like we take a somewhat similar approach to diffusion, although I have for several years used a twin flash rather than the single flash that I used before that.

Click to expand...

Ours is indeed a similar approach in the way the light is dispersed. I've looked at your webpage, and your images are outstanding.

If I may, your tremendous DIY effort at diffusing the harsh light inherent in the MT-24 Twinlight can basically be seen in the elaborate nature of how much you've had to diffuse the heads to get the even lighting you now enjoy.

That is a lot of customization you've done. On the one hand, my hat is off to you, for your passion and tenacity. On the other hand, I've been able to accomplish a similar objective, by purchasing custom macro diffusers from Malaysia and Indonesia. Here is another one which orients more forward, as your orientation does:







As you can see, this model comes with an LED light source which assists with "seeing" the subject through the viewfinder. All of the Malasian diffusers are variations of this prototype:



I did not make my own. I don't have the time, or aptitude, to spend buying all the equipment, and putting in all the work. I make too much money just doing my profession. For me, it was more cost-effective to just pay several vendors their nominal fees for the completed "versions" of the above, after which I used them all in the field, and determined for myself which version I liked best.

gardenersassistant said:

I prefer to work hand-held and prefer to use natural light when feasible, which is all the time for flowers etc and occasionally for larger invertebrates. I prefer to use 6K video for focus stacking flowers etc.

Click to expand...

Actually, I use these diffusers only when I hand-hold. (The rigs were mounted on a tripod only so I could photographing,) So what you're seeing is my hand-holding rig. My stacking rig is the same thing ... but without the flash or diffuser, only the macro rail.

gardenersassistant said:

I have only rarely stacked insects, but I have it in mind to try it again, perhaps, this season, probably also with video, using an LED light, or natural light. I'll need to use a tripod for this.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The rig I posted on the tripod (w/o the flash) is my stacking rig, which I deploy early in the morning, when there's no wind movement.

gardenersassistant said:

I used to use a tripod a lot but now much prefer to work hand-held. One reason for this is that my invertebrate subjects tend to only settle briefly/move around/be on surfaces which are moving in the breeze.

Click to expand...

Yes. Many subjects are unstackable by their very nature (move a lot, etc.). Crab spiders are among my favorite stackable subjects, as are praying mantids. Here is a 28-image stack I took of a Mecaphesa sp. with the above rig, @ roughly 5:1, using the Laowa 25 2.5x to 5x f/2.5 on the D850:


Mecaphesa sp. (Note: EXIF is wrong. Lens is Laowa 25 2.5x-5x, which does not register EXIF)

The advantage to stacking wide-open (with lenses that are sharp wide-open), is that you can get excellent depth-of-field, and yet enjoy the creamy bokeh of more artistic images.

No matter what camera you use, no matter what flash/diffuser, shooting @ f/16 with a flash will never produce the kind of subtle color graduations that shooing wide-open, no flash, will produce. It is a surreal look to me which happens to be my preference.

When I have subjects that don't allow a stack, then I will hand-hold and use a diffused flash stopped-down for an adequate single image.

gardenersassistant said:

For flowers etc I prefer the compositional responsiveness and flexibility that I can achieve working hand-held, sometimes necessarily one-handed to reach awkwardly placed subjects.

Click to expand...

Agreed, cheers.

--
* My Flickr Page

Any links for that diffuser? Looks like it should work well for the stuff I'm into

TripleCoatedBokeh said:

Any links for that diffuser? Looks like it should work well for the stuff I'm into

Click to expand...

I actually bought 3 different versions of this:



Each has advantages/disadvantages.

Google "Malaysan macro diffuser" and you should find some commercial results.

Best of luck,

Jack

John Koerner said:

gardenersassistant said:

That is very informative. Thank you.

Click to expand...

You bet.

John Koerner said:

It looks like we take a somewhat similar approach to diffusion, although I have for several years used a twin flash rather than the single flash that I used before that.

Click to expand...

Ours is indeed a similar approach in the way the light is dispersed. I've looked at your webpage, and your images are outstanding.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

John Koerner said:

If I may, your tremendous DIY effort at diffusing the harsh light inherent in the MT-24 Twinlight can basically be seen in the elaborate nature of how much you've had to diffuse the heads to get the even lighting you now enjoy.

Click to expand...

It is actually a Venus Optics KX800.

I don't understand why the light from a twin flash would be inherently more harsh than light from a single flash. I used a hot-shoe mounted flash for some years before adopting the KX800, using a similar multi-layer approach to diffusion (there is more to those boxes than can be seen from the outside). As I recall I felt the quality of light I was getting improved when I moved to the KX800.

John Koerner said:

That is a lot of customization you've done. On the one hand, my hat is off to you, for your passion and tenacity. On the other hand, I've been able to accomplish a similar objective, by purchasing custom macro diffusers from Malaysia and Indonesia. Here is another one which orients more forward, as your orientation does:







As you can see, this model comes with an LED light source which assists with "seeing" the subject through the viewfinder. All of the Malasian diffusers are variations of this prototype:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to this interesting video.

John Koerner said:

I did not make my own. I don't have the time, or aptitude, to spend buying all the equipment, and putting in all the work. I make too much money just doing my profession. For me, it was more cost-effective to just pay several vendors their nominal fees for the completed "versions" of the above, after which I used them all in the field, and determined for myself which version I liked best.

Click to expand...

I have plenty of time available. I like to experiment. Like others around here and on similar forums I have spent a lot of time trying various diffusion arrangements.

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

I prefer to work hand-held and prefer to use natural light when feasible, which is all the time for flowers etc and occasionally for larger invertebrates. I prefer to use 6K video for focus stacking flowers etc.

Click to expand...

Actually, I use these diffusers only when I hand-hold. (The rigs were mounted on a tripod only so I could photographing,) So what you're seeing is my hand-holding rig. My stacking rig is the same thing ... but without the flash or diffuser, only the macro rail.

John Koerner said:

I have only rarely stacked insects, but I have it in mind to try it again, perhaps, this season, probably also with video, using an LED light, or natural light. I'll need to use a tripod for this.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The rig I posted on the tripod (w/o the flash) is my stacking rig, which I deploy early in the morning, when there's no wind movement.

Click to expand...

I haven't done any early morning sessions for several years now. Perhaps I will. Natural light with the tripod can produce some lovely results.

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

I used to use a tripod a lot but now much prefer to work hand-held. One reason for this is that my invertebrate subjects tend to only settle briefly/move around/be on surfaces which are moving in the breeze.

Click to expand...

Yes. Many subjects are unstackable by their very nature (move a lot, etc.). Crab spiders are among my favorite stackable subjects, as are praying mantids. Here is a 28-image stack I took of a Mecaphesa sp. with the above rig, @ roughly 5:1, using the Laowa 25 2.5x to 5x f/2.5 on the D850:


Mecaphesa sp. (Note: EXIF is wrong. Lens is Laowa 25 2.5x-5x, which does not register EXIF)

The advantage to stacking wide-open (with lenses that are sharp wide-open), is that you can get excellent depth-of-field, and yet enjoy the creamy bokeh of more artistic images.

Click to expand...

Yes, I use a macro lens at maximum aperture for my (hand-held) flower etc stacks.

John Koerner said:

No matter what camera you use, no matter what flash/diffuser, shooting @ f/16 with a flash will never produce the kind of subtle color graduations that shooing wide-open, no flash, will produce. It is a surreal look to me which happens to be my preference.

Click to expand...

We each have our preferred style. I think for invertebrates mine is rather softer than yours.

When looking directly with my own eyes I don't see many super-sharp edges in nature. I find the images you have posted very striking; and they look preternaturally sharp to my eye. I have no problem with that, like I said they are very striking.

Of my own images I have said for some years now that what I would like to do is produce pretty pictures. Reality is something else, a place I might happen to visit sometimes with my images, but not a destination I'm trying to get to (or away from).

I wish I could paint; photography is the nearest I can get to it. I think of my images as made rather than captured. Along with illumination, processing, for me, seems key. Equipment, not so much.

John Koerner said:

When I have subjects that don't allow a stack, then I will hand-hold and use a diffused flash stopped-down for an adequate single image.

Click to expand...

For invertebrates I use minimum aperture the whole time: around f/45 full frame equivalent with all the kit I use. (Yes, I know about diffraction and loss of fine detail. I prefer the DOF tradeoff.)

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

For flowers etc I prefer the compositional responsiveness and flexibility that I can achieve working hand-held, sometimes necessarily one-handed to reach awkwardly placed subjects.

Click to expand...

Agreed, cheers.

Click to expand...

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

VicentePG said:

When I began my research, I was looking for the one and only best macro kit. I would purchase it and use it for many years. I realize now that this was a very naive idea.

Click to expand...

That's because the kit you end up with is going to be the one that fits your style of shooting. If you don't mind the limitations that comes with certain setups then you can use pretty much anything. You might want to look at what other macro shooters are doing and when you see images that you'd like to take then see what they're using and build your wish list from it.

The reason why I don't recommend 100mm macro lenses, no matter what style you decide to use, is because they aren't the right tool for any light source. For a constant light source you'll wish you had more working distance, and for flash you'll need to get your diffuser close to the subject anyway (so getting a lot of working distance works against you). I could easily afford Canon's 100mm L macro, but I don't own one and have no interest in it.

John K said:

OK, that's an actual flash gun and not an LED light source like you mentioned in your previous post to me. Let me explain a few things about what you're doing cause you don't understand flash photography very well.

Click to expand...

John, why do you always make it a point to come across condescending, like you're some "higher authority?" I assure you, you are not. It makes it difficult to have a decent conversation with such an egomaniac.

John K said:

The majority of the light that a flash produces is coming straight out, think of it as a high pressure stream from a hose. Due to your flash being camera mounted, and pointing straight out, most of the light it produces is simply being wasted since it won't hit the subject. Some of it will get diffused by that last piece of diffusion material and bounced down to the subject, but the majority of it won't.

Click to expand...

What you don't comprehend is the fact there is reflective material throughout the inside. Not much light is lost ... but, I agree, some of the light is lost due to the distance. This is the precise benefit of which I spoke, because it removes the harshness ... which is pretty much the whole point.

John K said:

The top of the diffuser is going to bounce some of that light down, but that bounce is gonna cost you a full stop plus you'll lose some more with that last piece of diffusion on the end. You're getting diffused light because only because you're using the light that's spilling out the bottom of the flash, and the light that's spilling out of the top off your flash and bouncing off of the top of your diffuser. Again, with most of the light wasted cause it's just going out into space. So as you shoot above 1x and with the lens stopped down you're gonna have a tough time keeping your flash duration short enough to freeze motion. Motion blur in macro doesn't look like traditional motion blur, but what you will see is a loss of detail because the motion is amplifying diffraction. Doesn't take much motion, probably no more than 1/4 the width of a pixel, and diffraction softening will get noticeably worse.

Click to expand...

I am LMAO at how you try to "educate" everyone, always trying to be "the macro authority" ;-)

I have photographed many subjects @ 3x to 5x with this very rig; so everything you're saying is coming from "your imagination," not reality.

It's kinda funny really.

Do you realize that I used to shoot with virtually the exact same rig you have (Canon 7D + MPE 65 + MT 24 + home made diffuser) ... but that I simply found Nikon and Laowa to be superior? Can you comprehend that, by all tests done, that this gear has all been unequivocally measured as superior? There is nothing to debate.

It's funny to me, because you are telling me "all about" my gear ... and yet you've never used it. Meanwhile, I am explaining my experience, not my imagination, after actually owning your same gear.

John K said:

You, like many people who shoot macro, probably started focus stacking because you're having a tough time getting sharp single frame images with a lens that's stopped down. And like most you probably blame diffraction for all of the softness that you see in an image. But motion, the sharpness of your lens (and how that sharpness changes as you add things to increase the mag like tubes, diopters, teleconverters, etc.) and the quality of the light you're using (including the angle between the light, subject, and sensor) can impact image sharpness by increasing diffraction softening. Your technique might be forcing you to focus stack...

Click to expand...

My goodness, is there no end to your speculation as to what I "probably" do?

You're wrong John. I've shot many, many, many "sharp, single-frame images" using a flash. Here are a few:


Phidippus adumbratus ♂ @ 2x


Phidippus adumbratus ♀ @ 5x


Green Bottle Fly (Lucilia sericata) @ 3.5x


Green Lacewing larva (Chrysoperla sp. ) @ 3.5x

Please comprehend, John, it's not that "I don't know how to use a flash," it's that I just don't happen to like the look of the images, because they're so clinical.

My gear and diffuser are more sophisticated than yours. They remove that "yellow cast" better than yours. (However, even my own rig sometimes leaves a "yellow cast.") My images are as sharp as yours.

Please comprehend the difference between a photographer's "preference" to his "ability."

I have an absolutely first-class flash set up, it is just that I prefer properly-stacked images, taken with sharp lenses, wide open, in optimal, natural light.

It's pretty much that simple.

Maybe I should be like you, and educate you about stacking images. It is actually much, much more difficult to get a 20-60 image stack, of a live subject in nature, in optimal natural light ... than it is to "bait bees" in your backyard, and take a single image with a flash diffuser set up. Like about 100x more difficult and labor-intensive.

I know, I do both.

Could it be you're just too lazy to do the work required to stack images optimally, so you prefer a single-click w/ a flash?

John K said:

Check out the Apparent Light Size article at Strobist to see why getting your diffuser further away from the subject is a mistake.

Click to expand...

Thank you for all your teachings, sensei. If it wasn't for your "wisdom," I don't know where I would be as a photographer

John K said:

Last, but not least: You might even have issues getting a proper exposure without increasing the ISO or decreasing your Fstop due to the flash being camera mounted and pointing out into space.

Click to expand...

Another "guess" from the self-appointed guru :-|

--
* My Flickr Page

John Koerner said:

John K said:

OK, that's an actual flash gun and not an LED light source like you mentioned in your previous post to me. Let me explain a few things about what you're doing cause you don't understand flash photography very well.

Click to expand...

John, why do you always make it a point to come across condescending, like you're some "higher authority?" I assure you, you are not. It makes it difficult to have a decent conversation with such an egomaniac.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you understand flash photography very well because you think that getting a flash/diffuser close to the subject changes the white balance or color cast, and because you're using a camera mounted flash to shoot macro.

As I've said before any yellow cast to my images is due to possible white balance issues (something I started working on a few months ago). I use to use a 1/8 CTO gel on my fill flash, but realized that the resulting light was a little too warm and stopped using it. I also shoot a lot of subjects on yellow flowers, and the flash is gonna hit it and the flower becomes a yellow reflector. It's not something that I can compensate for, other than to stop shooting critters on yellow flowers.

As for coming across as condescending me thinks that the pot just called the kettle black...

John K said:

I don't think that you understand flash photography very well because you think that getting a flash/diffuser close to the subject changes the white balance or color cast, and because you're using a camera mounted flash to shoot macro.

Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. I guess I guess I will have to learn to live without your approval.

My own thoughts are you don't understand flash well, because 9 out of 10 of your images have all the subtle color details blown-out, and you keep trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear (fiddling with the MT-24), rather than just buying a silk purse to begin with (a better flash rig).

John K said:

As I've said before any yellow cast to my images is due to possible white balance issues (something I started working on a few months ago). I use to use a 1/8 CTO gel on my fill flash, but realized that the resulting light was a little too warm and stopped using it.

Click to expand...

You continue to prove my point: flash gel, new DIY diffusers, "white balance issues," rather then simply comprehending the fact the MT-24 Flash is sub-optimal.

John K said:

I also shoot a lot of subjects on yellow flowers, and the flash is gonna hit it and the flower becomes a yellow reflector. It's not something that I can compensate for, other than to stop shooting critters on yellow flowers.

Click to expand...

This can happen also, true.

John K said:

As for coming across as condescending me thinks that the pot just called the kettle black...

Click to expand...

LOL, fair enough

At the end of the day, I admire your passion, and much of your work. We share the same basic obsession, we just express ourselves differently.

Obviously, you've taken scores of excellent images, and occasionally I take a few good ones also.

Our methods and tools may be different, so let's move forward knowing that our passion for macro is shared.

Cheers,

Jack

John Koerner said:

...and you keep trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear (fiddling with the MT-24), rather than just buying a silk purse to begin with (a better flash rig).

Click to expand...

Point to the doll and tell me where the MT-24EX touched you

I've been shooting with the MT-26 EX RT since it was released. I agree with you, the MT-24EX was TERRIBLE! Brutally harsh out of the box and a PITA to diffuse because it had no built in diffuser. Plus the build quality made it feel like a cheap toy. The MT-26EX RT has a built in diffuser that works pretty well, at least it doesn't have the MT-24 EX's central hot spot.

John Koerner said:

At the end of the day, I admire your passion, and much of your work. We share the same basic obsession, we just express ourselves differently.

Obviously, you've taken scores of excellent images, and occasionally I take a few good ones also.

Our methods and tools may be different, so let's move forward knowing that our passion for macro is shared.

Cheers,

Jack

Click to expand...

Jack to be honest I like your work. But you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on flash based macro. Whatever you chose to use is gonna be very dependent on your photographic style. A macro twin flash happens to fit my style of shooting. Is it the best light source? Nope. But it works for me and what I'm trying to do with my photography.

John K said:

That's because the kit you end up with is going to be the one that fits your style of shooting. If you don't mind the limitations that comes with certain setups then you can use pretty much anything. You might want to look at what other macro shooters are doing and when you see images that you'd like to take then see what they're using and build your wish list from it.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Since I shoot many different macro "styles," this is why, here, I recommended 3 different lenses, because no "one" lens will let anyone express their macro interests fully.

John K said:

The reason why I don't recommend 100mm macro lenses, no matter what style you decide to use, is because they aren't the right tool for any light source. For a constant light source you'll wish you had more working distance, and for flash you'll need to get your diffuser close to the subject anyway (so getting a lot of working distance works against you). I could easily afford Canon's 100mm L macro, but I don't own one and have no interest in it.

Click to expand...

I actually own the single most expensive wildlife lens on the market, the 800mm FL ED, and I've also owned the Canon 100, Canon 100L, the Nikkor 105G ... and, in general, I actually agree with you: the 100mm focal length is a "catch-all" ... not a specialist length.

That said, you need to try the Laowa 100mm 2x.

Reason being: 1) it is a 2x magnification lens, not just 1x (like all the rest); 2) it is sharper, wide-open, than any other macro lens; 3) it is CA-corrected, and produces cleaner images than any other macro.

The ability to go from infinity, to 2x magnification, in the field ... at a sharpness level greater than 99% of what's out there ... better bokeh ... and CA-controlled to boot ... is truly liberating in a single optic.

Click on the link above: I've owned more of the best macro lenses than most.

And the Laowa is the single most useful tool of them all ... and the least expensive. Almost ridiculously inexpensive. I can afford (and own) a $16,000 bird lens ... but I shoot with a $500 macro lens. In fact, I sold three $2000 macro lenses to use this $500 macro lens almost exclusively.

For portrait compositions, I also use the ridiculously inexpensive Irix 150mm. I got rid of my $1800 Micro-Nikkor 200mm in favor of this $500 optic also.

In the same fashion, the ridiculously inexpensive Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x is not only better than the MPE 65, it's half the cost also.

I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about measured results + ownership experience.

John K said:

Point to the doll and tell me where the MT-24EX touched you

I've been shooting with the MT-26 EX RT since it was released. I agree with you, the MT-24EX was TERRIBLE! Brutally harsh out of the box and a PITA to diffuse because it had no built in diffuser. Plus the build quality made it feel like a cheap toy. The MT-26EX RT has a built in diffuser that works pretty well, at least it doesn't have the MT-24 EX's central hot spot.
Jack to be honest I like your work. But you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on flash based macro. Whatever you chose to use is gonna be very dependent on your photographic style. A macro twin flash happens to fit my style of shooting. Is it the best light source? Nope. But it works for me and what I'm trying to do with my photography.

Click to expand...

Good shooting, John.

John Koerner said:

...That said, you need to try the Laowa 100mm 2x.

Reason being: 1) it is a 2x magnification lens, not just 1x (like all the rest); 2) it is sharper, wide-open, than any other macro lens; 3) it is CA-corrected, and produces cleaner images than any other macro.

Click to expand...

It has a working distance of almost 6" at 2x, and for that reason I wouldn't use it. I'd have to get my flash way out past the lens to get the light quality that I want, so the working distance would work against me. I want light that partially wraps around the subject, and two light sources at different angles so I can have a lot of control over the shadows. The end result is light that makes the subject pop out of the frame.





Also notice that the subject is moving in that shot, so getting the flash close to the subject allows me to freeze motion to keep diffraction softening to a minimum (because motion can amplify diffraction).

It also has a manual aperture and the viewfinder would be dark at F11 unless I switch to a mirror-less camera. The Laowa works for you cause you're shooting wide open...

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

gardenersassistant said:

Thank you.

Click to expand...

You bet.

gardenersassistant said:

It is actually a Venus Optics KX800.

I don't understand why the light from a twin flash would be inherently more harsh than light from a single flash. I used a hot-shoe mounted flash for some years before adopting the KX800, using a similar multi-layer approach to diffusion (there is more to those boxes than can be seen from the outside). As I recall I felt the quality of light I was getting improved when I moved to the KX800.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. As fellow macro junkie, I am actually going order one and give it a try. Your images are excellent, and it seems to have more flexibility than the MP-24.

gardenersassistant said:

Thanks for the link to this interesting video.

Click to expand...

You bet

gardenersassistant said:

I have plenty of time available. I like to experiment. Like others around here and on similar forums I have spent a lot of time trying various diffusion arrangements.

Click to expand...

Ditto

gardenersassistant said:

I haven't done any early morning sessions for several years now. Perhaps I will. Natural light with the tripod can produce some lovely results.

Click to expand...

Early morning natural light simply offers the most sublime image quality. No shadow, no specular highlights, just soft pastel colors. Taking the time to shoot this way allows you to soak-in all of the subtle color nuances and detail that (for my eyes) get lost in 99% of flash photography. It's gentler on the eyes, more satisfying to the soul.

gardenersassistant said:

Yes, I use a macro lens at maximum aperture for my (hand-held) flower etc stacks.

We each have our preferred style. I think for invertebrates mine is rather softer than yours.

When looking directly with my own eyes I don't see many super-sharp edges in nature. I find the images you have posted very striking; and they look preternaturally sharp to my eye. I have no problem with that, like I said they are very striking.

Click to expand...

Very true.

For me, if we use "the human eye" as a standard, then macro photography is itself ruled out, by default, because most of what we do canNOT be seen with the human eye.

Therefore, if macro photography in-and-of-itself is a discipline which goes "beyond" the human eye, by default, then we as artists/fanciers simply choose what area of this transgression is pleasing to us ... and what is not.

For me, while I do see the benefit of flash photography, and I use it myself (on subjects which do not allow stacking) ... the introduction of "false light" (and, often, a "yellow cast") that accompanies flash use ... ruins the subtle colors to my eye. All the delicate details get muted to an extent I am not willing to accept, if I can possibly avoid it.

The extra sharpness I get, beyond what the human eye can achieve, the exaggerated bokeh result I achieve, beyond what is real, and all of the subtle colors/nuances that go along with it ... create a bonus package that is unachievable by any other method.

I would rather put in the tedious work of getting up early, and trying to stack a great moment (dealing with the frustration of failure ... subject movement, wind movement, etc.), just so long as I get back the occasional reward of a truly still subject ... than to take "easy photos" all day that don't really satisfy me.
Here is an example of a wild subject which allowed me the indulgence of a "perfectly-completed" stack ... 58-images ... an Arizona Mantid nymph which rewarded me for having the patience:


Arizona Mantid (Stagmomantis limbata) 58-image stack @ .75x

When I can't stack, I am forever experimenting with new options for flash and diffusers (to confirm or rule out their usefulness according to my preferences), as well as single images taken in natural light.

gardenersassistant said:

Of my own images I have said for some years now that what I would like to do is produce pretty pictures. Reality is something else, a place I might happen to visit sometimes with my images, but not a destination I'm trying to get to (or away from).

Click to expand...

Understood.

gardenersassistant said:

I wish I could paint; photography is the nearest I can get to it. I think of my images as made rather than captured. Along with illumination, processing, for me, seems key. Equipment, not so much.

Click to expand...

What you said right here is precisely why I put in the the time to stack vs. taking "single images w/ flash."

There is an artistic, painterly quality to well-stacked, sharp macro photos (shot wide-open) that is utterly lacking in flash photography stopped-down. There is a gentleness, a serenity which moves me, and which other alternatives totally lack.

gardenersassistant said:

For invertebrates I use minimum aperture the whole time: around f/45 full frame equivalent with all the kit I use. (Yes, I know about diffraction and loss of fine detail. I prefer the DOF tradeoff.)

Click to expand...

Your approach and my approach are basically diametrically opposed. And that's okay!

I want absolute blur in my backgrounds, and I want absolute clarity in the subject.

Your method gives you absolute clarity in everything.

Your approach creates a more natural appearance, and the somewhat subdued sharpness of the diffraction you suffer gives your images a more "normal" appearance.

My approach, ultra-sharpness in subject, ultra-blur in background, gives my subject a more "surreal" appearance, which to me is the very "painterly artistry" you described.

I don't think either method is better than the other. I viewed your images with admiration in their composition, and a sense of fellow-interest.

For me, however, I would've approached the capture differently (in most cases), but that doesn't mean one approach is better than the other, only different.

I don't think I've ever taken an image past f/22. I think I'm in a try f/32 on my next attempt, which is the highest my gear will go.

At any rate, I really enjoyed learning about the way you shoot, and the dialogue between you, me, and John. We each may not prefer the methods of the other, but understanding and experimenting with them is still experience and appreciation gained.

Good shooting,

--
* My Flickr Page

John K said:

John Koerner said:

...That said, you need to try the Laowa 100mm 2x.

Reason being: 1) it is a 2x magnification lens, not just 1x (like all the rest); 2) it is sharper, wide-open, than any other macro lens; 3) it is CA-corrected, and produces cleaner images than any other macro.

Click to expand...

It has a working distance of almost 6" at 2x, and for that reason I wouldn't use it. I'd have to get my flash way out past the lens to get the light quality that I want, so the working distance would work against me. I want light that partially wraps around the subject, and two light sources at different angles so I can have a lot of control over the shadows. The end result is light that makes the subject pop out of the frame.

Click to expand...

The reasons you avoid this lens (a whopping 6" working distance) = the very reasons I seek it.

John K said:

Click to expand...

No offense, but all I see here is more yellow cast + more specular highlights. All of the natural, subtle color details are destroyed. No real sharpness, riddled with diffraction.

I would personally toss this image in the recycle bin, while you use it as an example of your work and point.

We simply disagree on a lot of funadmentals. But that's okay.

John K said:

Also notice that the subject is moving in that shot, so getting the flash close to the subject allows me to freeze motion to keep diffraction softening to a minimum (because motion can amplify diffraction).

Click to expand...

I see nothing compelling about this image. All color detail is blown. Horrific, yellow cast. All "sharpness" was achieved through post-processing a badly-colored, highly-diffracted image to begin with. With different technique, this could have been a beautiful image.

John K said:

It also has a manual aperture and the viewfinder would be dark at F11 unless I switch to a mirror-less camera. The Laowa works for you cause you're shooting wide open...

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

One of the things you would do well to take advantage of are FACTS.

The FACT is, the sharpest, best color/bokeh, etc. that can possibly be had (with the best lenses made) usually occurs @ f/2.8 to f/5.6. (Budget lenses @ f/8.)

Review the stats of any lens to verify these facts.

Therefore, any image shot @ f/11 - f/16, therefore, loses in color/contrast and acuity. You're shooting at the worst-end of the lens' capabilities. Introducing harsh light only exacerbates this effect.

However, by selecting the highest-quality lenses you can afford, and by shooting at the best aperture values of that lens ... stacking to get the desired depth-of-field ... you create the highest image quality available.

Anything less is just a compromise ...

Have a good weekend.

--
* My Flickr Page