The 300PF as a stabilized Macro on 23mm & 52mm extension

[Frank Fremerey]

Today I did a series with the tc-20E II (deglassed by Dr. Lens). Very good results too. But the first sample is my 77mm NL-3 from B+W and I dedicate the shot to Jakov:

[Frank Fremerey]

So here is the tc-20E first results on the 300PF:

[Frank Fremerey]

My verdict: critical sharpness is not achieved. You get usable results after post. The limit for achieving sharpness is about arms length so much better than with the TC-14E.

BUT: IQ is dramatically better with the TC-14Emod:

[ColinM]

Thanks for posting these Frank.

Can you tell us what the oval shaped fruits are in   smalledit_KO7_1799_.JPG ?

[Grahame Hamblin]

Taken 300pf plus a plus 3 diopter  hand held need more practice but has possibilities  about 20 cms distance
Grahame

[Frank Fremerey]

Taken 300pf plus a plus 3 diopter  hand held need more practice but has possibilities  about 20 cms distance
Grahame

Superb shot. I bought a Canon 500D Diopter a few days ago. Waiting for delivery.

[Grahame Hamblin]

Thanks Frank it has lots of possibilities hand holding at 82 is a problem
Grahame

[Grahame Hamblin]

I called this one moon walker I know not sharp but family love it  300 plus 3+ diopter

[Peter Connan]

For a while now I have been using the older 300f4 AF-S for larger insects which are often too skittish for dedicated macro lenses.

However, instead of using extension tubes, I have used a normal un-modified TC1.4.

Of course, this setup is not stabilized, and the AF is probably much poorer than the PF, so all I suggesting here is the possible use of a normal TC rather than an extension tube.

[Frank Fremerey]

Peter: Impressive results.


I am contemplating to get the TC-14E III in addition to my extension tubes. But this can wait. Even 450mm equivalent field of view seems quite long to me already, given I got my first Tele lens last year after stopping shot at 135mm since I started taking photos on a daily basis in 1983

[Frank Fremerey]

some more on the D850

1. yellow beets
2. flaming flower
3. saw tooth leaf

[PeterN]

It is an interesting experiment! My favos are your dreamy first and subtle last. Great composition!

[longzoom]

David: very interesting what you do. From me macro was always tripod and manual focus and small subject distance. With a long stabilized lens with superb AF they spontaneous, emotional shot is achievable. A new field opens. I really like the 105VR optically, but I hate the CAR and the AF because they are not really helpful tracking bees in flight which is my goal. With the D500 and very soon the D850 the AF and VR of the long version 300PF is superb. A bit of practice and you hope to create amazing stuff I could not create with my earlier equipment. Nice to hear that the 70-200 and 200-500 are also useful. Very interesting. Wish I had more time20160616-119-2 by 20160616-119 by longzoom, on Flickrom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr to shoot & edit20160616-115 by longzoom, on Flickr

.     About a year ago I did try my 80-400G with extensions, for some project. Try was not successful. Then, I tried Canon 500D, got a 1:1.5 magn on FF, at 400mm, and clear 1:1 on DX. VR and AF were up to task! So the image of my wristwatch, 2 crops. Sorry for some uneven sharpness, handheld with less than 2mm of DOF, so last crop  from a different pic, but you get the idea.  THX!.  LZ

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A technical nit-pick: if you get 1:1.5 magnification on FX, you get exactly the same on DX. Magnification is a scaling and thus entirely independent of format of the capturing media. To illustrate; 1:1 life-size on 8x10" is a close facial portrait.

Thus magnification and hence depth of field is equal, but the field of view is different (since the formats are different). Familiar to everyone using a wide range of formats in the older days (I shot anything from 35mm film to 8x0").

[longzoom]

Out of questions - of course I get the same magn! But due to smaller sensor it is ease to say I get 1:1 magn on DX! Yeah, everything is the same - distance, focus in mm, but covering of the field is less than FF! Absolutely correct - field of view is different!  THX!  LZ