Ok, maybe you don't like the 18-55mm

[Hayabusa Rider]

Today

 

[notfred]

That picture makes me think of the theme to "Reading Rainbow".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bump cause it's purdy.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Could you provide a higher res image? I don't think I can see one of the ants on the ground.. 15 miles away.

 

[montanafan]

Yes it is purdy!
I posted in the other thread about the 18-55 lens and linked to this pic I took. I don't know why some people put down the kit lens. I think when you can see the pollen on the bee, you're close enough.

Pollination

 

[TriStar]

Very nice pic. If you can catch enough of them critters you will have a great meal.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

What kind of settings did you use? Seems a little soft for the 100mm. The exif is gone.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Sorry, I thought you were still talking about the 18-55. Do you have the 200mm f/2.8 as well?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Sorry, I thought you were still talking about the 18-55. Do you have the 200mm f/2.8 as well?

No, I have the 18-55 which was given to me, and I didnt think all that bad. Some apparently believe that if it isn't "L" glass, it's not worth much, so I posted something different I took today.

The other lens I own is the 28-135 IS USM.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Sorry, I thought you were still talking about the 18-55. Do you have the 200mm f/2.8 as well?

No, I have the 18-55 which was given to me, and I didnt think all that bad. Some apparently believe that if it isn't "L" glass, it's not worth much, so I posted something different I took today.

The other lens I own is the 28-135 IS USM.

That's crazy talk. My MP-E 65mm macro and TS-E 90mm are awesome, and 100% L free.

But anyway, settings, man, settings!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

What kind of settings did you use? Seems a little soft for the 100mm. The exif is gone.

I suspect it is because it's hand held and I may have had the shutter too slow. Hey, I'm a n00b

 

[montanafan]

I agree with Wallydraigle The glass if fine, it's all in the settings. That pic I took of the bee was with manual focus. You can override a lot of the weaknesses of the programmed settings by going manual with the settings and/ or the focus.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
is this the 130 mm or the 200mm lens?

This one is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

What kind of settings did you use? Seems a little soft for the 100mm. The exif is gone.

I suspect it is because it's hand held and I may have had the shutter too slow. Hey, I'm a n00b

It looks like you had it wide open, or nearly so, also. All lenses get sharper when they're closed down a couple stops, but macro lenses especially are optimized to be sharp at smaller apertures where they are more likely to be used for macro.

Something else to look at is your sharpness settings in the menu. I don't have my camera with me, but I think the neutral setting is "0". There are settings that actually soften the image by various degrees. This seems like a dumb thing to do, but there are portrait shooters who like things a little soft and don't want to soften hundreds of images in software if they don't have to. If you're shooting RAW the settings don't really matter because you can change them when you convert.