BUGGED OUT BY THE 20D !!!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181


Jesus.

That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze
the poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd
you get it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11
and is it worth using?


grrrrr

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110181



Jesus.

That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze
the poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd
you get it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11
and is it worth using?
-----------------------------------

No, those were taken handheld without mirror lockup.
The MP-E lens doesn't focus the way most lenses do.
You rack it out to increase the magnification from 1x up to 5x.
Focus is achieved by moving the lens closer or farther away from the
subject, which has proven quite challenging so far with bugs that
usually fly away when you put a lens 1" from them.
And since I have to move the camera, using a tripod is kinda tough
without a special mount.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 18:17:03 -0700, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
wrote:

>Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
Bloody good effort seeing that you hav'nt had the lens five minutes.
Keep on posting Brett.
eric phillips

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Yy_7e.2824$t85.2542@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>At 1/250 you shouldn't need MLU. Just a good tripod and enough light!

The 1/focal_length rule is for infinity focus. You could need as much
as 0.1/focal_length for macro.

The shutter speed needed to avoid shaking-blur is not really related to
focal length; it is related to magnification, and it is just a
coincidence that that most subjects are usually far enough away from the
camera that magnification is proportional to focal length.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Great work.
....amazing macro work.
Jock

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113614222.890260.163600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
|
| http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
| http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
| http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
|

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
>
> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181


Hello

Pretty good. By the way it is a hoverfly.
They mimic a bee in appearance but are harmless, except to aphids.


Mike Engles

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <jMf8e.5644$t85.1925@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>With any decent SLR, at 1/250 you do not need a MLU. I tried subjects as
>close as 0.2mm from the microscope lens successfully without MLU. The rules
>you're postulating are for tripod vs. non-tripod. Vibration induction from
>mirror slap is a completely different subject.

Yes. I thought I saw a post that said that 1/250 wasn't needed, and I
thought I was replying to it, but apparently, I was hallucinating.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:fJi8e.591967$w62.584031@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Damn!
>
> That lens looks to be a load of fun. For me, I'm reversing a Pentax 50mm
> f1.7 on the Canon 50mm 1.8 II. I get high mag. Illumination is not even
> and perhap not as sharp.
>
> A dirt cheap setup is to buy 2 EOS 50mm 1.8's for $150, get a reversing
> ring for another $20 (?) and enjoy.
>
> John
>
BTW, here is a central crop of a shot using the Canon 50mm 1.8 with the
Pentax reversed on it. Hand held, ISO 800, dRebel
http://home.att.net/~jriegle/revmacro.jpg
Not a bad alternative if you can't afford that Canon $800 macro lens.
John

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
>

UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Did you need extention tubes or a bellows for the eye detail shots?
Bob Williams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:lbl8e.2953$_t3.2242@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Those are fantastic shots, Bret!

They sure are.

Cathy

> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113614222.890260.163600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181