CI Photocommunity
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
All my money....
- Thread starter Guest .
- Start date
foveonfan
Well-Known Member
So what sort of statement are you trying to deliver here, Klaus? Something along the line of, " Do not bother asking me for a loan because this is my total monetary worth"? 
Seriously, that is a new extension of your creativity with the 105. Very nice use of flash indeed.
Sincere regards, Jim R
Seriously, that is a new extension of your creativity with the 105. Very nice use of flash indeed.
Sincere regards, Jim R
laurence2
Well-Known Member
A REALLY neat idea for a shot! And, all those COLORS! I am curious as to what you used to produce such a beautiful spectrum in the background.
As Uwe said, it's got to more than flashlights!
Klaus, how is the 105 macro working for you? If you needed to repurchase a dedicated macro lens, would it still be the 105? Or would it be the 50, or 70, or 150, or 180?
I will want to definitely pick up a macro for the SD14, but am unsure which way to go. My general macro shooting would not be for insects or anything that might move - it would be more for flowers and other organic elements.
In any case this is a WONDERFFUL shot, Klaus.
As Uwe said, it's got to more than flashlights!
Klaus, how is the 105 macro working for you? If you needed to repurchase a dedicated macro lens, would it still be the 105? Or would it be the 50, or 70, or 150, or 180?
I will want to definitely pick up a macro for the SD14, but am unsure which way to go. My general macro shooting would not be for insects or anything that might move - it would be more for flowers and other organic elements.
In any case this is a WONDERFFUL shot, Klaus.
Hi Larry,
I think the spectrum is reflection from a CD.
Take a CD and let the light reflect you will see the spectrum.
Knowing Klaus,the remaining he has done in his digital darkroom.
On the macro lenses,I would go for the 150.
I had the whole line for tests for a weekend.
All of them are very close.
To keep it short,I kept the 150mm and the 70mm.
If I had to choose again,the 150 would be it.
Hope it helps.
Regards
Uwe
I think the spectrum is reflection from a CD.
Take a CD and let the light reflect you will see the spectrum.
Knowing Klaus,the remaining he has done in his digital darkroom.
On the macro lenses,I would go for the 150.
I had the whole line for tests for a weekend.
All of them are very close.
To keep it short,I kept the 150mm and the 70mm.
If I had to choose again,the 150 would be it.
Hope it helps.
Regards
Uwe
Hi All,
thaks for your comments.
Well, since I had no LIGHT for shooting for weeks now I did some work in the studio.
(To be honest ... I have no explicit studio ... I just arrange things spontaneously)
The shot is not all that tricky. I just had the "penny" on a CD-disc. The acrylic surface then reflects the flashlight (two flashlights from different directions) in this very "chromatic" way.
I just fiddled a bit, to have the flashlight stripe the coin ... which makes its engraving more plastic.
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
thaks for your comments.
Well, since I had no LIGHT for shooting for weeks now I did some work in the studio.
(To be honest ... I have no explicit studio ... I just arrange things spontaneously)
The shot is not all that tricky. I just had the "penny" on a CD-disc. The acrylic surface then reflects the flashlight (two flashlights from different directions) in this very "chromatic" way.
I just fiddled a bit, to have the flashlight stripe the coin ... which makes its engraving more plastic.
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
Hi Larry,
though I am very much in macro photography, the 105mm is the only "real" macro lens I have.
It was pure a coincidence that I got this the other day from the internet at a very considerable price.
No doubt ... it is a wonderful lens with a unique performance as far as sharpness and contrast (even fully open) are concerned.
Anyway, there are means and ways to achieve similar perfect image results with our Do It Yourself-measures.
Well, experiences with other SIGMA-macro-lenses ....
I know, that Uwe has the 70mm and the 150mm macros ...
Uwe, could you tell a few stories about them??!
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
laurence2
Well-Known Member
You guys are a TREASURE of information. I never realized that you are engaged in so much experimentation; this is an area that I have bookmarked, as I know I will eventually want to create the same types of auxiliary components for increasing macro ability.
I truly appreciate this forum. It is full of good things.
Laurence
I truly appreciate this forum. It is full of good things.
Laurence
NAH ... Jim ... I am sure you will be using your 105mm for many many years!
Maybe I will need your advice with the lens!! So far, I did not manage much more than test-shots with it. I am very much looking forward for the next macro-season. Until then I will have to find a solution to adapt my old SOLIGOR ring-flash to it. Normally It fits filter mounts up to just 55mm.
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
laurence2
Well-Known Member
I ordered the 50 EX Macro. It is a fairly cheap unit, my money is currently limited, and the lens has good reviews. When I get some more money, I'll probably look at the 70, 105, 150, and 180.
It will be interesting to compare the Sigma macro to my current rather basic "macro" using the Super Takumar 55/1.8 and extension tubes.
The Takumar setup is VERY sharp but not particularly easy to use, and of course the Sigma 50 has 1:1 built in to the lens.
Laurence
It will be interesting to compare the Sigma macro to my current rather basic "macro" using the Super Takumar 55/1.8 and extension tubes.
The Takumar setup is VERY sharp but not particularly easy to use, and of course the Sigma 50 has 1:1 built in to the lens.
Laurence
Well,
the shorter focal lengthes provide a wider depth of field at the same aperture stops compared to the longer ones.
Their clear disadvantage is, that they do not work on distances. So, you have to approach your scene very close. Most insects do not tolerate that and will surely take flight.
Focal lengthes between 100mm up to 200mm do best then.
If money is short just go the M42 way. If you are a bit handy, working manual aperture-control you can reach a very good image quality this way.
This one I did with a 30 year old PORST 75-260mm MACRO-Zoom that I additionally had on a bellows (macro-tubes do the same job!) ... SD9
You can have similar equipment very cheaply.
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
the shorter focal lengthes provide a wider depth of field at the same aperture stops compared to the longer ones.
Their clear disadvantage is, that they do not work on distances. So, you have to approach your scene very close. Most insects do not tolerate that and will surely take flight.
Focal lengthes between 100mm up to 200mm do best then.
If money is short just go the M42 way. If you are a bit handy, working manual aperture-control you can reach a very good image quality this way.
This one I did with a 30 year old PORST 75-260mm MACRO-Zoom that I additionally had on a bellows (macro-tubes do the same job!) ... SD9
You can have similar equipment very cheaply.
See you with nice pictures
Klaus
laurence2
Well-Known Member
I respect the opinions on this forum. After all, all I have to do is look at the images that you folks create!
I have decided to cancel the order for the 50mm, based on the VERY logical and very good information above.
I "see the light"
about having a bit of distance for macro images.
Even though I don't generally shoot insects and small life forms, you are correct in that having a bit of distance
to work with can only be a proviso for better usage of the macro fields.
In addition, I do have, as mentioned earlier, a very nice 55/1.8 Takumar and extension tubes that might be
just as "handy" as the Sigma 50. And of COURSE I should look at a bit longer focal lengths in the M42
standard. In fact, I may be able to purchase a Kiron 105/2.5 that goes to 1:1. I know that this is a fairly
highly renowned lens, so it is probably worth a try.
THANK YOU! This is one of the benefits of the forum, and I DO tend to listen to advice!
Laurence
I have decided to cancel the order for the 50mm, based on the VERY logical and very good information above.
I "see the light"
Even though I don't generally shoot insects and small life forms, you are correct in that having a bit of distance
to work with can only be a proviso for better usage of the macro fields.
In addition, I do have, as mentioned earlier, a very nice 55/1.8 Takumar and extension tubes that might be
just as "handy" as the Sigma 50. And of COURSE I should look at a bit longer focal lengths in the M42
standard. In fact, I may be able to purchase a Kiron 105/2.5 that goes to 1:1. I know that this is a fairly
highly renowned lens, so it is probably worth a try.
THANK YOU! This is one of the benefits of the forum, and I DO tend to listen to advice!
Laurence
foveonfan
Well-Known Member
Hi Larry,
basicly you can put Pentax K lenses on a Sigma.
Ok,you have to remove or cut the aperture level first.
I think removing is the better way,no dust, and it can be put back if needed.
The other thing is the Pentax K bayonet is a little bit smaller than the Sigma.
On a Sigma you can shift the lense sideways ~1mm.
If you can live with that go ahead.
Regards
Uwe
BTW: @ Jim + Larry,you guys give me a hard time to follow your conerversation.
I have to use my DCE (Dictionary of Contemporary English) more and more.
basicly you can put Pentax K lenses on a Sigma.
Ok,you have to remove or cut the aperture level first.
I think removing is the better way,no dust, and it can be put back if needed.
The other thing is the Pentax K bayonet is a little bit smaller than the Sigma.
On a Sigma you can shift the lense sideways ~1mm.
If you can live with that go ahead.
Regards
Uwe
BTW: @ Jim + Larry,you guys give me a hard time to follow your conerversation.
I have to use my DCE (Dictionary of Contemporary English) more and more.