Using tiny apertures - Part 3, Experiments

 

Now invigorated by unexpected success, I tried various combinations of the following, some of which I had already and some of which I purchased as the exercise went on:

• A Sigma 105mm macro lens, autofocus, infinity focus to 1:1
• A Canon 65mm MPE-65 macro lens, manual focus, 1:1 to 5:1 only
• A Laowa 25mm macro lens, manual focus, 2.5:1 to 5:1 only
• A Meike 85mm macro lens, manual focus, infinity focus to 1.5:1
• A Laowa 100mm macro lens, manual focus, infinity focus to 2:1
• A Canon EF-S mount 14-45 kit lens, used reversed with a simple reversing ring and with a Meike wired reverser (allows aperture control and autofocus)
• A Kenko 1.4X teleconverter
• A Kenko 2X teleconverter, and later a second one
• Kenko 12, 20 and 36mm extension tubes

Apart from the 14-45, these were all Canon EF mount. Also, a hybrid setup using:

• An Olympus 60mm micro four thirds macro lens, infinity focus to 1:1
• Meike 10 and 16mm micro four thirds extension tubes.
• Raynox close-up lenses

Since I had adapters for EF mount to Sony E mount and for EF mount to micro four thirds, I could test any of the EF mount kit on my Sony A7ii and various Panasonic G series micro four thirds cameras, in addition to mounting them directly on my Canon 70D dSLR.

With various of the EF mount combinations I got more results of a type I hadn't achieved with my close-up lenses. This included some other (not quite so) small subjects that I had previously had difficulty with, such as this small spider, captured here with a Sigma 105mm macro and a 2X teleconverter on the A7ii.

I had started out with very small subjects in mind, but it turned out that these setups could give me results I liked with larger subjects, both for whole body shots of the sort I use so much. 

(The yellows look a bit OTT to me in this one, but that of course is a separate, and curable, issue, like with the previous one looking a bit on the dark side. These were quickly processed as part of large volume test sessions. That's my excuse anyway.) 

I was also getting some results I liked the look of with closer-in shots of larger subjects, which I had never done much of previously, but began to find more appealing to try. This one, like the previous one, was captured with a Laowa 100mm macro and 2X teleconverter on the A7ii.

 Three months in to these experiments, at the end of August, I had a great piece of luck. Something, presumably a cat, killed a pigeon and left it on the grass in our garden. It quickly attracted a large number of wasps and flies.

This gave me several days in which I had a target-rich scene I could use to test various setups and compare both the resulting images and the operational characteristics of the setups. As well as using several of the E-mount setups, I also used a close-up lens setup to check whether the E-mount setups with their greater depth of field really did produce results I preferred. Strictly like for like comparisons were obviously impossible as there was continuous movement in the scene. But I captured so many images that it was possible to pick pairs that were similar enough to draw conclusions from. (Results obviously varied from image to image, but I concluded that overall the E-mount setups did produce results that I preferred compared to the close-up lens results.) 

Another very useful comparison was between the handling characteristics of A7ii, 70D and G9 setups. That led me to the conclusion that I preferred using the A7ii. I could see more clearly what was going on, which let me react faster and focus more reliably, which was helped some of the time with focus peaking signals from the A7ii. They were quite weak, and absent quite a lot of the time, but when they were there they were helpful. I didn't get any focus peaking signal from the G9 and the 70D didn't have focus peaking.

These were the sort of images I was comparing between setups.