George, I truly appreciate those words and I thank you deeply for that . I am glad you like the images. I had a great time planning them and trying to execute the best I could. I must say though that they are still not there as I would have wanted them. But tomorrow is another day and I have plenty of incense sticks to burn. .

Like you, I also prefer the simpler ones, they are very captivating and the simplicity of the smoke itself appeals to me.

The last one I am afraid the answer for those colours are much simpler than perhaps you might have thought to be . I just coloured the patterns of the smoke in photoshop. . Its just an old habit of mine of playing with the colours, since I started these smoke plays once in a while I take a few images with more appealing patterns and just use some colouring skills that I managed to improvise over time and this way I also practise my still very crude post processing skills .

Thank you again for your kind comment

Just couldn't stay away from smoke. This is what happens when one gets addicted to it

A few twists from yesterday's smoking rose. Still not exactly how I wanted but I think I managed to improve a little.

C&C greatly welcome please as usual

Got you there John,
But now I am thinking, I have a tamy 1.4 and the pentax 1.7, so if I stick it in the 100mm macro lens and fill the frame with it what would be the effect on the DOF compared to if I take the same image BUT:

Instance a) take the image with the 100mm lens alone, from the same distance as above so obviously the frame won't be filled, and then I crop it

and b) Take the same image with the 100mm Macro lens alone but moving physically closer to fill the frame.

Wonder what is the consequences of this.

I will be going to try these shortly and upload the results also. Seems there is some experiments coming up shortly

Thanks Stefan

Nothing like a simple calculation to clarify these details further.
Pretty well clear now, and I can go and lock myself in the shed and put those calculations into practice

Thanks again to everyone above who has helped me tremendously.
I feel much wiser now compared to when I got up this morning

EDITED: Stefan can you recheck those details again please? You have got f/numbers designated by two different symbols. Am I missing something here?

Thanks George,

Reading from your comment above and from what I have just been told it seems that its one heck of a lens

Thanks John,
Will definitely experiment as you suggested.

My idea is trying to get as much DOF as possible while still maintaining sharpness overall and also magnification. I really can't be too close to the droplets for the obvious reasons and also correct me if I am wrong, the closer I am the shallower the depth of field, am I assuming this correctly?

Just found that there is a Sigma 180mm F3.5 EX DG Macro.
So basically I would like to know the difference in using the 100mm Macro plus 1.7TC as opposed to the Sigma 180mm.

From what I understand about losing one stop with the TC, doesn't that work the same compared to the 180mm? The sigma is one stop slower anyway, and considering the fact that this Pentax 1.7x Adapter has a tendency not to lose a lot of IQ when attached to the lens.

Hi everyone,

I would like to try to understand the differences in practical terms between for example using the Pentax 1.7TC with my 100mm Macro lens and having a 200mm Macro F/4 (if one existed for the Pentax fit, don't have a clue about it anyway, but am just making assumptions)

Apart from losing a couple of stops and degrading a little image quality, my confusion is really the following:


Suppose I had a 200mm Macro and for a specific setup I have it at ISO 200 and F/11 and SS at 180, so if I had to use the 100mm plus the 1.7 (disregarding the 30mm difference here, just the basics) instead and trying to achieve the same result what would I need to do? Does it mean that I have to bump the iso to 400 or alternatively also lower the F stop to F/8 for example? Is that the consequence when "losing a stop or two" means? And consequently this means that I am either going to get more noise or lose a bit of DOF, am I correct in my understanding?

I know this are minute differences in general terms, but I just wanted to understand cause and effect because when I am shooting the liquid droplets the little things could mean between a sharp water splash in total or just partial. That one stop could make a big difference, more and more so because I have to crop it.

So in simplified terms, what is achievable with a 200mm Macro lens that a 100mm macro plus the 1.7TC cannot do?

All the help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Amin