The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
I’m not really equipped for macro photography, but I love shooting dragonflies and the like, anyway. I’m saving up for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 which I believe would make shots like this much easier.
Specific Feedback
No, just general comments.
Technical Details
Canon RF 100-500mm, handheld, processed in ACR and PSE 2020 for exposure and cropping. Topaz DeNoise applied mainly for some slight sharpening.
Terry, this is a nice look at the damselfly. She seems sharp all the way, which is nice when we can line them up parallel to the camera. The light looks a bit bright. Not sure if she would have allowed you to shadow her with your body or a diffuser though. They can be pretty skittish. I like how she is sitting on the leaf, and how it curves into the image. The BG was probably too close to blur it out better, and so the bluish shadows I guess right behind her is a bit distracting. Still, it is a fine look at her, and that is what counts. They aren’t the easiest to photograph.
Thanks @Shirley_Freeman. My primary goal in shooting her handheld with that big lens was to get her sharp front-to-back. I think I accomplished that. I’m not sure what the bluish background is. I’ve gone back out there and looked at that spot for anything blue, and I don’t see anything. I might be able to tone it down some but, because of the location, it’s unlikely I can totally eliminate it without messing with those awesome wings.
Terry, I think you accomplished that too, HH a big lens and capturing her sharply front to back. I don’t have that lens but I’m not sure I could do that with my Sigma 15-600, that would be hard to hold steady and get her that sharp. You did well, and this is a good shot of her. The blue isn’t that distracting, I only mentioned it in case you might want to see if there was anything that could be done. I am wondering if it is shadow in the leaves, and so causing a blue cast because it is cooler light? I definitely wouldn’t do anything to mess up those wings.
Lovely!! I assume this is the 100-500 lens. If you want macro, get the 2X before the 70-200. Or with your APS-C sensor, the 1.4X would probably be enough. I love my 1000mm macro!
I did get the 70-200 recently, and it’s a wonderful lens, but you have that focal length range already, and with the same close focus. The extra light and shallower DOF of the 70-200 is nice, but hardly a huge factor for me. With the 1.4X on the 100-500 you will still get a very shallow DOF for closeup work, and with many subjects you need significant DOF anyway. You can often soften the BG after the fact if the subject is sharp. For me, the 70-200 is only useful for aerials, where the 100-500 is just too long and heavy with the window just inches from my shoulder, and for easier handling stalking a fast-moving 7-year-old while I’m crawling under the coffee table.
The blues: no problem. That’s the only blue in the image. Try a hue-sat adj layer targeted to the blue and cyan channels, or Selective Color. Or better done in the raw stage. It was trickier than I thought it would be. Hue-Sat didn’t work well at all but here it is with only global color changes. A Selective Color adj layer, Blue channel with Cyan and Magenta pulled full left and Yellow pulled full right. Cyan channel with Cyan and Magenta pulled halfway to the left and Yellows pulled full right.
I fixed the glitch at the bottom center and cloned out the leaf tip on the left edge.
Terrific job on the rework @Diane_Miller. I’m going to play with it and see if I can duplicate what you did. Yes, I shot this with the RF 100-500. As for the 70-200 vs. an extender, I had just about ruled out an extender as the 100-500 won’t retract fully with an extender attached. (I think it becomes something like a 300-500.) So, I lose that shorter focal length. Is that not an issue? Plus the amount of decreased light coupled with the APS-C sensor. I’m soooooo confused…
Yes, Terry, it looks like @Diane_Miller did a great job with her edit. I need to get more knowledgeable in LR, for sure.
I haven’t bought any of Canon’s RF lenses yet. I just bought the adapter and using all of my old EF lenses. Maybe some day, but I have the EF lenses, and they work for me. I do use the APS-C option on the R5 some, when shooting birds that just aren’t as close to me as I would like. So far I really like the R5 very much. Been using it lately with the EF 180mm macro lens with the IBIS activated on the R5, now I have IS on that old lens! I used that combo this morning, in fact. I haven’t loaded them yet, but hoping I got a DF or two at least.
From the photos I’ve seen that you have posted, it appears that combo is working very well for you. I still have the old EF 70-300mm I was using on my Canon 60D, and have been thinking I just need to get an adapter, and try that combo on the R7. The 70-300 is not a great lens, but it always did pretty well at closer focal ranges. Figuring all this out and finding the right combinations can be maddening!
Terry, it’s an inconvenience but when I want the shorter focal lengths, I just take off the extender. You’ll have 100-500 without it and 420-700 with it. Plus the 1.6 of your crop sensor. For subjects when I want the extender I don’t think I’ve ever missed not being able to go all the way to 100mm. With my 2X I have 600-1000mm. I very rarely take it off. Light loss has become a non-issue with the low noise at high-ISO of newer bodies and the NR capabilities of software, which is just short of mind-boggling.
With the exceptional quality of the 100-500, why would you even think about the very old 70-300? It is not even in the same league and a newer body will just make its flaws more obvious.
If you’re looking for a shorter focal length, there are some Sigma EFs in a good price range. I’m not up on the research but Mother Google probably knows a lot. Or start a Discussion here. Before I got the 70-200 I had a gap from 70 to 100 and never missed not having it covered.
If you want a real macro lens, the Sigma 180 or Canon 100 are wonderful.
The extenders are a bit of a hassle to put on, since you have to zoom the lens out to 300mm or longer. But that lens design has saved you some weight and $$ with no compromise in quality.
@Shirley_Freeman, the EF lenses work perfectly with the adapter. I’m using all of my old ones and only have the 100-500 and 70-200 RF.
Terry: I love your image and Diane’s rework although I’m OK with the blue. I also like the dappled light and the spotlighting on the subject.
I’m not familiar with Canon lenses but I had a similar quandary with my Sony system. I have a 100-400 in the Sony A mount that I can use with my E mount adapter on my A7RIII. This is a fine lens and I have 1.4x and 2x extenders that give me a lot of length, especially with my APS A77II DSLR. That said, it is heavy and difficult to hand hold. The new Sony 70-200 f2.8 is remarkably lighter and doesn’t require an adapter. Coupled with its in lens OSS and the image stabilization in the camera I can hand hold more effectively and have many fewer AF misses. I bought a 2x for it and find the combination of that and/or some small extension tubes really works good for macro. I have done most of my macro work with my venerable Minolta 200mm macro but I’m appreciating the flexibility and the much better AF of the 70-200. >=))>
@Diane_Miller and @Bill_Fach, thank you both for your comments and insights. Bill, you detailed my thoughts concerning the 70-200 - the lighter weight and I would think compactness. My wife was looking over my shoulder while I was examining your shot of the dragonfly with the 70-200 and she asked, “Wow…could you get shots like that with that Canon 70-200 you want?” I answered, “Well, the camera and lens would be capable of shots like that!”
Terry, thank you for your kind comments about my images. I still feel like I have a long way to go in my photography.
You have got some good advice from @Diane_Miller and @Bill_Fach . Is the 70-300 the only EF lens you have now? If not, the adapter runs about $100, and you would be able then to use it on other lenses that you own, as well as try your old 70-300 just to see how it does. If that is your only EF lens, I think Diane has given you some good advice. You have a fine body, so you want to use good glass too. I wish you the best in your decision. It is hard when it comes to buying new equipment and deciding what really will work for you. Renting first could even be an option to to make sure you know what you want.
Terry, be aware the Canon RF 70-200 will not take a TC, while the Sony will – frustrating! I would seriously consider using the 100-500 with a 1.4X for small insects. The TC does not change the 3 ft close focus distance. A monopod can help with weight and bulk issues.
Thanks for the tip, @Diane_Miller. I just gave that a try, not nearly as successful as yours, but I can see lots of possibilities in using this technique.
Hey, Shirley. There are very few of us here whose photography can’t be improved. I feel like I’ve grown a lot since joining NPN, but I still have a long way to go.
I do have a very good EF 17-40mm L series which is a very good professional portrait lens, and an EF-S 10-18mm ultrawide lens made only to be used on the APS-C sensor that has come in handy a handful of times. I don’t plan on replacing these lenses with RF mounts, so I need an adapter, anyway.
Yeah, I have pondered this conundrum. I don’t follow Canon’s thinking on this. If ever one was going to use an extender, wouldn’t you think it might be on a f/2.8 lens with this focal length??? Point well-taken and under consideration.
Damselflies are tough subjects to get in focus from head to tail. This one is sharp and in focus for its entire length. A macro lens will work better and allows you to focus closer on the subject than your current lens setup. The 70-200mm should be better for you in this type of situation. If you can find a 150mm or 200mm macro lens will be even better. Coming in tighter to the subject will help with the BG too. Light is harsh, but you handled it quite well…Jim
