pentax 17-70 sdm

I seem to be having a much better hit rate with my manual lenses than the AF ones. I bought the Sigma 17-70mm and a 50mm f2.8 DG EX macro lens at the same time and I just cannot get on with either. Why anyone would want autofocus for macro is beyond me, I just cant seem to get a sharp picture with it.

Manual focusing is the way to go for still macro subjects. Tripod, low ISO, 2 second delayed action to remove any shake and manual focusing with SR off.

I have only ever used a tripod once for a macro shot and it came out terrible, probably because I forgot to turn off anti shake.
I prefer to hand hold the camera and use flash, most of the time there is no time for a tripod anyway.

What sort of macro shots are these?

A second issue arises here. If using flash it will enable small apertures and hence lots of depth of field (relatively) so the presence of any mis-focusing will be masked.

The other question of course is what are we meaning here by a macro shot. Are we really talking about 1:1 or maybe 1:2 magnifications or are we using the tern loosly when we really mean close focusing within say 15cm to a couple of metres?

It's easily misunderstood, just like saying to kids "Don't talk to strangers" which was widely used at one time. When someone actually bothered to ask a class "What is a stranger?" none of them knew....so what I'm saying is that perhaps we should define our terms?

A macro shot such as this one which was actually closer than 1:1 as I was using a 90mm Tamron f2.8 with a Vivitar 2X macro converter attached.
The fly landed, I happened to be there with the camera set up and took the shot.
Hand held with flash, no cropping.
We all like to do things differently dont we but because I prefer to not use a tripod and use flash is that such a bad thing?




Or this which was a 1:1 shot to start with at full magnification again but cropped to get a clearer picture of the main subject. Again hand held with flash.

I am also a bit puzzled by this statement, we use a lot of different equipment to help us with focusing such as split screens, eyecups and even autofocus so to say using a flash would mask any mis-focusing as a bad thing seems rather strange to me .. or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

Not at all! I tend to use a handheld + flash approach for most insects (not all, depends what they are and the type of shot I'm taking), but for fungi, flowers etc, I'll nearly always have it tripod mounted, as I'll use natural light more often than not (but perhaps with a bit of fill flash). Usually a polariser too.

You should use what works for you.

Dan

I don't think John was saying it was a bad thing, just that focusing may not be any more accurate. So that the greater depth of field would cover up the fact that the focus point isn't necessarily on the exact point you'd need it if you were using a wider aperture.

Autofocusing macro while handholding is a nightmare, as you can't hold the camera still enough to keep the thing in focus once the AF has locked on. It can be used when tripod mounted.

Dan

Nothing is a bad thing if it works for you.

The point I was making was that using flash will help with slight focusing errors because of the smaller apertures available compared to available light.

Personally I find hand held macro almost impossible, but with moving insects you can't avoid that, which is where skill comes in.

For static subjects I would always use a tripod and manual focus, avoiding the harsh light of flash and preferring natural light wherever possible.

Great shots!
...but I wonder what effect the flash has on those eyes!

Does anyone ever use these lenses for subjects other than macro (as well as macro)? AF would be relevant then.

- - - - -
Fantastic flies!

Absolutely! I often use my Sigma 105mm for non-macro shots, and the AF comes in very handy then too.

Dan

I was thinking of getting either the Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm af lenses but after using the Sigma 50mm I can now see why getting the Pentax 100mm with quick shift focus would make a lot more sense.

This was my reasoning too and I haven't regretted the decision once (and the Pentax is quite a bit lighter making it easier to hand-hold).

As for non-macro use, mine probably gets used around 10% macro / 90% telephoto - it really shines at longer distances and the 1:1 capability is a rather nice bonus.