Best macro lens for dragonflies

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

"Graham Archer" <brother@gra369.f2s.com> wrote in message
news e1krm$pg4$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of
> dragonflies etc
> I need a lens that would take photos of insects from a distance with out
> disturbing them.
> Any suggestions please !
> Thanks !


I shot this http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/44998760 with my Canon EF
100-400L IS hand held while look down and over a railing.

It's neither a Macro nor Nikon but it might give you an idea what you can do
even with a good zoom/telephoto lens.

A couple more I've down with the same lens.
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/47580194
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/47691432

BTW: The first two are not cropped. The last one was cropped to print out
on 8x10.

--

Rob

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

I use a Tamron 180mm Macro with excellent results and a good working
distance.

Greg
"Graham Archer" <brother@gra369.f2s.com> wrote in message
news e1krm$pg4$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of
> dragonflies etc
> I need a lens that would take photos of insects from a distance with out
> disturbing them.
> Any suggestions please !
> Thanks !
>

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

Graham Archer wrote:
> Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of
> dragonflies etc
> I need a lens that would take photos of insects from a distance with
> out disturbing them.
> Any suggestions please !
> Thanks !

I believe they have a 200mm macro.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

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

Yes. Get Nikon's Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8D AF. It works great and is
rather inexpensive (less than US$600). It offers 1:1 and is fast and
sharp.

See the following handheld shot with flash bracket at 1/400 flash sync
using an SB-800:

http://www.pbase.com/overney/image/47282019.jpg

Gregor

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

Graham Archer wrote:

> Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of dragonflies

Even at 200mm, you will need a very co-operative dragonfly (unless you
like chilling them -- or let nature do the chilling and you take
pictures of them in the early morning.)

Otherwise, get the Nikon equivalent of a 300/4 telephoto and a 2x
converter: a reasonable setup (especially if it can close-focus like
the Canon EF 300/4L IS). Flash advised.

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Graham Archer wrote:
>
> > Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of dragonflies
>
> Even at 200mm, you will need a very co-operative dragonfly (unless you
> like chilling them -- or let nature do the chilling and you take
> pictures of them in the early morning.)

Actually dragonflys can be pretty playful, sometimes I even get them to
sit on my hand.

>
> Otherwise, get the Nikon equivalent of a 300/4 telephoto and a 2x
> converter: a reasonable setup (especially if it can close-focus like
> the Canon EF 300/4L IS). Flash advised.

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Graham Archer wrote:
>
> > Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of dragonflies
>
> Even at 200mm, you will need a very co-operative dragonfly (unless you
> like chilling them -- or let nature do the chilling and you take
> pictures of them in the early morning.)
>
> Otherwise, get the Nikon equivalent of a 300/4 telephoto and a 2x
> converter: a reasonable setup (especially if it can close-focus like
> the Canon EF 300/4L IS). Flash advised.

I agree,

I shoot dragonflies (or try to) all the time with a 200mm IS lens, and
it's pretty difficult to get the little buggers to stand still when you
get within 10 feet (2 meters or so)

Butterflies are even worse, and forget trying to get a grasshopper that
you don't just happen upon.

Get a 400, just go for the big guns.

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

Graham Archer wrote:
> Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of dragonflies
> etc
> I need a lens that would take photos of insects from a distance with out
> disturbing them.
> Any suggestions please !
> Thanks !

Basically all of the photos in the following link were taken with a
55mm Micro Nikkor circa 1983 reverse mounted to my D70s. When flash
was used, it was the built-in D70 flash, nothing fancy. The lens is
manual focus, but in macro this is not a bad thing at all. At any
rate, I wouldn't really worry about "disturbing" the insects...they're
used to it. Did I mention that this lens was $120 from B&H?

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/insects

Ben

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:36:47 +0100, "Graham Archer"
<brother@gra369.f2s.com> wrote:

>Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of dragonflies
>etc
>I need a lens that would take photos of insects from a distance with out
>disturbing them.
>Any suggestions please !
> Thanks !
>

From a distance = long FL. Think 180-200 mm, like the Micro Nikkor 200
or the Sigma Apo Macro 180 or the Tamron Macro 180. Add a FL
multiplier (2x) to get more working distance. Add a flash (ordinary,
not ring flash), unless you always work in full sunlight.

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

Paul Flackett wrote:

> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg

This one is incredible - great shot, Paul!

Ben

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

In message <1124413416.315001.3740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wavelength <sbrisendine@gmail.com> writes
>
>eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Graham Archer wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, I have a Nikon D70 and I would like to take some pictures of
>> >dragonflies
>>
>> Even at 200mm, you will need a very co-operative dragonfly (unless you
>> like chilling them -- or let nature do the chilling and you take
>> pictures of them in the early morning.)
>>
>> Otherwise, get the Nikon equivalent of a 300/4 telephoto and a 2x
>> converter: a reasonable setup (especially if it can close-focus like
>> the Canon EF 300/4L IS). Flash advised.
>
>I agree,
>
>I shoot dragonflies (or try to) all the time with a 200mm IS lens, and
>it's pretty difficult to get the little buggers to stand still when you
>get within 10 feet (2 meters or so)
>
>Butterflies are even worse, and forget trying to get a grasshopper that
>you don't just happen upon.
>
>Get a 400, just go for the big guns.
>
I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting
a shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to
capture the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of
capturing flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in
the viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight
path, dragonflies definitely do not.

I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.

I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
These are some of the shots I have taken with it.

www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg

.....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
its best.....

www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...

--
Paul Flackett

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

Paul Flackett wrote:

> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>
> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>
> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>
> ....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
> its best.....
>
> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...

Spectacular shots! What is the working distance with the 100mm for these
shots? I use a Nikon Micro 105mm and have a hard time getting close enough
to dragonflies without scaring them.



Rita

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

In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
<ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
>Paul Flackett wrote:
>
>> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>
>> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>
>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>
>> ....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>> its best.....
>>
>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>
>Spectacular shots! What is the working distance with the 100mm for these
>shots? I use a Nikon Micro 105mm and have a hard time getting close enough
>to dragonflies without scaring them.
>
Thanks. It focuses down to about 15cm but most of these shots were
further away than that, although the Common Darter was pretty close. The
flight shot was over a metre away, maybe even two, so it's a fairly
lo-res shot unfortunately. However it's a good advertisement for digital
as I'd have run out of film long before I got this one!

They're not the easiest of subjects - you just need a lot of patience.
Generally easier than birds though as you often get several tries and
some will allow you to approach very close. Wearing drab clothes
definitely helps, as does watching your position relative to the sun.
The Golden Ringed Dragonfly however was happy to crawl onto my hand
after I had taken the shot. I think it was in some sort of post-coital
stupor (lying back and smoking a cigarette?) - you can see the mating
debris at the end of its abdomen.

Apologies to other posters. I incorrectly stated that the original
poster had specified macro. I don't know where I got that from. Doh!

--
Paul Flackett

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:03:32 +0100, Paul Flackett
<no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Apologies to other posters. I incorrectly stated that the original
>poster had specified macro. I don't know where I got that from. Doh!

Well, the thread header does say "Best macro lens for dragonflies", so
you were right the first time.

Talking about big guns, Sigma used to make a 300 mm macro (with
closest focusing yielding 1:3 if I remember correctly). The longest
true macros (1:1) I am aware of are 200mm and 180 mm. There was also a
Sigma 600 f/8 catadioptric focusing down to 1:3 at 2 m (I have one),
but focusing is too difficult for mobile subjects, and DOF is a bit
too small to be usable for macro in practice.

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

"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> a écrit dans le message de news:
85elg1h87hq2sd244484t7l2botb6tlfkk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:03:32 +0100, Paul Flackett
> <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Talking about big guns, Sigma used to make a 300 mm macro (with
> closest focusing yielding 1:3 if I remember correctly).


Don't you mean Sigma 70-300 mm macro, yielding 1:2 ?
http://dhost.info/photocanon/sigma/index.htm?size=1&exi...


at least 3 variations existed, the best beeing "APO" (not of much importance
with an APS sized frame).

Mike

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

In message <85elg1h87hq2sd244484t7l2botb6tlfkk@4ax.com>, Deedee Tee
<abuse@localhost.?.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:03:32 +0100, Paul Flackett
><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Apologies to other posters. I incorrectly stated that the original
>>poster had specified macro. I don't know where I got that from. Doh!
>
>Well, the thread header does say "Best macro lens for dragonflies", so
>you were right the first time.
>
Oh yes ..... ahem ..... the senior moments are now starting to outnumber
the non-senior ones :-)
--
Paul Flackett

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

In article <URHih8COiZCDFw1l@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
<no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting
>a shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
>lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
>such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to
>capture the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of
>capturing flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in
>the viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight
>path, dragonflies definitely do not.
>
>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
>best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
>terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>
>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>
>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>
>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>its best.....
>
>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>
Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?

David
--
David Littlewood

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

In message <O3s5D1Ryb3CDFw1M@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
<david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <URHih8COiZCDFw1l@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between
>>getting a shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked
>>about a macro lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful
>>whether a big lens such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus
>>close enough to capture the detail he is after. And if you want to
>>stand a chance of capturing flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky
>>to even get one in the viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly
>>predictable flight path, dragonflies definitely do not.
>>
>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>>the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>>35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>
>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>
>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>
>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>>its best.....
>>
>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>>
>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>
Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July
for the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
Cheshire).

Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post
on the Focalpoint forums?

--
Paul Flackett

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

In article <6BrplvA9o5CDFwwD@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
<no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <O3s5D1Ryb3CDFw1M@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <URHih8COiZCDFw1l@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
>><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between
>>>getting a shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked
>>>about a macro lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful
>>>whether a big lens such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus
>>>close enough to capture the detail he is after. And if you want to
>>>stand a chance of capturing flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky
>>>to even get one in the viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a
>>>fairly predictable flight path, dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>
>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>>>the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>>>35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>
>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>
>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one
>>>at its best.....
>>>
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>>>
>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>
>Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July
>for the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
>Cheshire).
>
Thanks.

>Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post
>on the Focalpoint forums?
>
No, I'm not familiar with it. I have posted quite a lot in the rec.photo
newsgroups over the last few years though.

David
--
David Littlewood

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:24:59 -0400, "Mike" <mike@home.ca> wrote:

>Don't you mean Sigma 70-300 mm macro, yielding 1:2 ?
>http://dhost.info/photocanon/sigma/index.htm?size=1&exi...

No, what I had in mind is the Sigma AF 300 f/4 APO Macro, probably
discontinued. A couple of models were made. Lighter and easier to
handle than a zoom. Then of course there are the 70-300 Sigma macro
zooms, at least three models are/were sold.

They used to make even a 400 f/5.6 APO Macro, probably also 1:3.

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

"Paul Flackett" <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6BrplvA9o5CDFwwD@rainow.demon.co.uk...
> In message <O3s5D1Ryb3CDFw1M@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <URHih8COiZCDFw1l@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
>><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting a
>>>shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
>>>lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
>>>such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to capture
>>>the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of capturing
>>>flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in the
>>>viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight path,
>>>dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>
>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
>>>best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
>>>terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>
>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>
>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>>>its best.....
>>>
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>>>
>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>
> Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July for
> the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
> Cheshire).
>
> Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post on
> the Focalpoint forums?
>
> --
> Paul Flackett
>

Some nice pics there. Ambient light too. What ISO exposure did you use for
the in flight?

I have the Canon 100mm macro. I often wonder why they don't have IS on
macros.

A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.

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

In message <430cbdda$0$4789$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Lester Wareham
<nospam@please.co.uk> writes
>
>"Paul Flackett" <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6BrplvA9o5CDFwwD@rainow.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <O3s5D1Ryb3CDFw1M@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
>> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <URHih8COiZCDFw1l@rainow.demon.co.uk>, Paul Flackett
>>><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>
>>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting a
>>>>shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
>>>>lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
>>>>such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to capture
>>>>the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of capturing
>>>>flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in the
>>>>viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight path,
>>>>dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>>
>>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
>>>>best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
>>>>terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>>
>>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>>
>>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>>
>>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>>>>its best.....
>>>>
>>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Common-Darter-close-up.jp...
>>>>
>>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>>
>> Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July for
>> the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
>> Cheshire).
>>
>> Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post on
>> the Focalpoint forums?
>>
>> --
>> Paul Flackett
>>
>
>Some nice pics there. Ambient light too. What ISO exposure did you use for
>the in flight?
>
>I have the Canon 100mm macro. I often wonder why they don't have IS on
>macros.
>
>A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.
>
The Emperor in flight was taken using ISO 200 which gave me 1/800 at f4.
Having just looked back at the RAW's I've surprised myself that the
close-up of the Darter was taken at ISO 100 and hand-held at 1/100. I
think I was rather lucky with this shot though and have done most others
since at ISO 400. I only ever go after dragonflies on sunny days - in
fact most only come out then anyway.
--
Paul Flackett

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

In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>
>
>Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>> >>
>> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>> >>
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>> >>
>
>Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
>manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
>
>Colin D.

Colin, the urls Paul posted worked fine in my newsreader. Perhaps you
should look for a better one? You make a good point though, I guess the
way you show would be more universally useful.

David
--
David Littlewood

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

In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>
>
>Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>> >>
>> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>> >>
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>> >>
>
>Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
>manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.

They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

Incidentally, marvellous photographs.

--
Ian G8ILZ

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

In article <x4ZM6kz$RYDDFwL3@newbrain.demon.co.uk>, Prometheus
<Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
> >
> >
> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
> >> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
> >> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
> >> >>
> >
> >Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
> >include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
> >make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
> >manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
>
> They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

Technically, they're not guaranteed to work unless you use the full URL
notation, INCLUDING THE QUOTATIONS:

<http://www.ranow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.j...;

Since that's what the RFC says, it's good practice to put the quotes
(the < and > signs) in. Most systems are cleverer than that, though.

FWIW, the Mac OS X mail client doesn't recognize the originals as URLs.
Put the http: in and it does (even without the //--and it goes to the
web site!).

--Ron Bruck

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

Paul Flackett wrote:
>
> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
> >>
> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
> >>
> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
> >>

Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.

Colin D.

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

Colin D wrote:
> Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
>>> Paul Flackett wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is
>>>> definitely
>>>> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent
>>>> in
>>>> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird
>>>> photographer). These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>>
>>>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>>
>
> Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if
> you include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will
> automatically make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above
> means one has to manually copy the link into a browser to view the
> page.
>
>

Sounds like a case of lazy-browser syndrome. They work fine here on
Win IE.

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

Ronald Bruck <bruck@imperator.usc.edu> wrote:

><Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg

>> >Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>> >include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>> >make it a clickable link,

>> They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

>Technically, they're not guaranteed to work unless you use the full URL
>notation, INCLUDING THE QUOTATIONS:
>
> <http://www.ranow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.j...;

Page Not Found. (spelling! :-)

There are no guarantees ;-]

--
Ken Tough

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:35:06 +0100, "Lester Wareham"
<nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

>A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.

Yup. More than my D70s body.

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

"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
news:iovqg1hc1m4hct5lv21r0mmhmeoe03pd0g@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:35:06 +0100, "Lester Wareham"
> <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.
>
> Yup. More than my D70s body.

I guess that's why people by 1Ds, makes the lenses look less expensive LOL.

Well I can hanker after the 5D or more probably the follow up to it in two
years time.

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

In message <x4ZM6kz$RYDDFwL3@newbrain.demon.co.uk>, Prometheus
<Prometheus@127.0.0.1> writes
>In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
><ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>>
>>
>>Paul Flackett wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>>> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
>>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>>> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>>> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>> >>
>>> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>> >>
>>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
>>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
>>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>> >>
>>
>>Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>>include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>>make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
>>manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
>
>They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.
>
>Incidentally, marvellous photographs.
>
Thankyou.

And I accept your suggestion Colin. Just laziness on my part. If I test
something out on my setup and it works, I tend to assume it will not
cause any problems for others.

--
Paul Flackett

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

David Littlewood wrote:
>
> In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
> >
> >
> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <11gja0visbrbj88@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
> >> <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> writes
> >> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
> >> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
> >> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
> >> >>
> >> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
> >> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Azure-damsels-mating.jpg
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
> >> >>
> >
> >Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
> >include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
> >make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
> >manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
> >
> >Colin D.
>
> Colin, the urls Paul posted worked fine in my newsreader. Perhaps you
> should look for a better one? You make a good point though, I guess the
> way you show would be more universally useful.
>
> David
> --
> David Littlewood

Maybe I should upgrade my mail/news client - at present, as I have done
for years, I use Netscape 4.8 for its clean, easy-to-use interface, and
haven't looked at others seriously. I did look at Xnews and Agent, but
they aren't anywhere as clean as NS to use. Looked at NS 7.2, but,
amazingly, there's no print icon on the toolbar! I don't use OE, or IE
for that matter, being somewhat paranoid about the unwanted attention
those two attract. I use Opera 8 for web access, but the mail/news
client is clunky, so I have ended up staying with NS 4.8, which suits
very well - apart from this small hiccup.

Colin D.