D2x+105mm+2xTC+Woody's diopter

[Kelpfish 15]

James,

 

Sure can. I am currently in Arizona but will do so when I get home in a few days. All is purchased at The Home Depot. I originally used them for close focus wide angle to reduce backscatter and really make the foreground image pop. Then I began experimenting with macro and in super macro, it seems to help a lot.

 

Joe

[Rocha 0]

Yeah, you should also post it in the do-it-yourself area! That's an interesting solution, and sometimes I find myself wanting more power from my SS200 in macro shots, I think this would help.

 

Luiz

[segal3 0]

Given a perfect optical lens, a camera captures the most resolution (resolving power) when the aperture is wide-open

 

Not true

I have to repeat that this is in fact true. However, given that we don't have perfect optical quality lenses, more times than not the best lenses have a resolving power peak around f4-f5.6 and the worst lenses have a peak around f8-f11. After that, you're on the way to serious diffraction on a cropped-sensor dSLR.

[scorpio_fish 5]

I have to repeat that this is in fact true.

 

Yes, this is true (to the extent one defines perfect optical quality as maximizing image definition). Must read more carefully before firing.

 

R=1800/N where R is resolving power and N if the f-number. So wider apertures always increase diffraction-limited resolving power.

[james 0]

Check out this post by Thom Hogan on DPreview.com:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=15003348

 

"I believe I've been consistent in saying f/11 is the diffraction limit on the D2x. Beyond that and you'll have some diffraction effects. On the 6mp bodies, f/16 seems to be the last aperture free from diffraction.

--

Thom Hogan

author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide

editor, Nikon DSLR Report

author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro

http://www.bythom.com "

[Ryan 48]

I agree w/ Thom re: f11 being the threshold for diffraction w/ pixels that small, for what its worth, that can be calculated here:

http://www.digitaldiver.net/dof_x.php

 

It might also depend on whether you are using a Nikon TC made for that lens or a Kenko Pro TC. I'm making a big assumption here but I'd assume Nikon's TC would at least have a better chance of "talking" to the camera.

 

Nikon cameras display the bellows effected f-stop in the viewfinder, but do not account for the multiplier of a third party teleconvertor. The 105 can't be used w/ E-series TC's from Nikon, only the manual TC-201 and TC-14. So, it is safe to say that no combination w/ the 105 is going to display the true aperture in the viewfinder, and Nikon doesn't even sell a combination that allows AF or metering w/ the 105.

 

When I use the 105 w/ a Nikon TC-201, I set the aperture on the lens to f11, and lock it at 1:1 w/ a piece of tape.

 

I've played w/ the 150 & Kenko 2x at a range of apertures, but haven't reached a good compromise f-stop. I plan to revisit this on the grass flats in Biscayne Bay, and will report back in early October.

 

I'm really fond of Sigma's 150 & 1.4x TC. The 1.4 holds sharpness much better than does the 2x. I'll usually use this combo w/ a Canon 500d and Woody's diopter. I have used this w/ a borrowed macro mate, but wasn't able to get much in the razor thin dof.

 

In my opinion, trying to shoot these at any shutter speed slower than the inverse of the focal length is going to be a challenge, anything less than half the inverse of the focal length will be impossible.. If the strobes are where they need to be, the Z-220s have surplus power.

[james 0]

Good post Ryan, thanks. Which 1.4x TC did you use with your Sigma 150?

 

Cheers

James

[herbko 0]

In my opinion, trying to shoot these at any shutter speed slower than the inverse of the focal length is going to be a challenge, anything less than half the inverse of the focal length will be impossible..  If the strobes are where they need to be, the Z-220s have surplus power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. For tiny stuff at reasonable aperture the Z-220 is fine. Rand had trouble only because he was shooting at F/59. For medium size fish and WA I often wish my Z-220's are brighter.

[Ryan 48]

Good post Ryan, thanks. Which 1.4x TC did you use with your Sigma 150?

Sigma, in this case. I have both Sigma and Kenko, and can't tell the difference in 200% blowups of text & graphic chart shot from a macro slide on a tripod.

 

 

Yes. For tiny stuff at reasonable aperture the Z-220 is fine. Rand had trouble only because he was shooting at F/59. For medium size fish and WA I often wish my Z-220's are brighter.

 

I have been using DS-125s for wa, and if I had an ISO 100, I'd travel w/ 200s. I use the ds-125 mainly for its warmer color temp and recycle.

 

EDIT: Had to fix my link because I can't spell shrimp.

[Rocha 0]

Ryan, I can't see the photo you posted, all there is here is "used posted image".

 

Luiz

 

EDIT: Now it works . Is this a crop or full frame?

[randapex 0]

I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Guess my dilema is still the trade off between diffraction vs DOF.

Shooting at f20-f25 with the 2x still wasn't giving me much DOF, so f11? Guess I'll find out in Hardy. One more:

 

f25 @ 1/30

 

[Ryan 48]

I never crop.

 

 

This is 1.4x TC, Canon 500d diopter, Sigma 150. I got some that are tighter w/ the nexus wet lens, but not as sharp.

 

This combination DOES translate the actual f-stop back to the camera, for further confusion.

[herbko 0]

I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Guess my dilema is still the trade off between diffraction vs DOF.

Shooting at f20-f25 with the 2x still wasn't  giving me much DOF, so f11? Guess I'll find out in Hardy. One more:

 

f25 @ 1/30

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great shot Rand! Needs just a little more DOF.

[yahsemtough 0]

Great shot Rand! Needs just a little more DOF.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>