Finding the macro limits of the 200-600 and a9

[spudhead]

So, I spent some time yesterday in changeable light trying to find the limits of the 200-600 lens used as a macro lens I believe the shots are all at 600mm so minimum focus distance around 2.3 metres although I could be wrong. please add your thoughts on the lens for close ups and add shots from the lens regardless of body used

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 2500

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 3200

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 2500

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 4000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 3200

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 4000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 2500

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

and shots from the lens regardless of body used

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

7.8ft is the minimum according to Sony. I often feel it's more though, but I'm clearly not good at judging that. This Migrant Hawker was taken as close as I could get focus.

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 1000

 

[spudhead]

7.8ft is the minimum according to Sony. I often feel it's more though, but I'm clearly not good at judging that. This Migrant Hawker was taken as close as I could get focus.View attachment 25201

nowt wrong with that Kev

 

[spudhead]

All of the shots are good. The very first one looks a bit soft around the head, maybe just the focus point.

How much are you cropping these? They have to be a huge crop to be that close. I made some over summer and cropped the heck out of them, the bees were nowhere near as large in my photos. I suppose I could've gone more, I'll check later and see if they'll hold up to more cropping.

They are huge a small part of the original in all the shots and yes some are a bit soft and that was the purpose of the exercise to try to find the limit of this great lens

 

[spudhead]

They are huge a small part of the original in all the shots and yes some are a bit soft and that was the purpose of the exercise to try to find the limit of this great lens

Tim the first file is 1.02

 

[spudhead]

So, as an experiment, here's the image I posted originally. This is already a big crop, the upload is shown as 5MP. This is with the A7-IV:
bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

Since it was on Flickr and they have their own cheesy little editing program, I went in and did some mods. There's no rhyme nor reason to how much I cropped, I just did. It ended up 1.69MP. Over all though, not too bad?

bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

it's crazy that this lens can do this Tim

Tim the first file is 1.02

 

[spudhead]

it's crazy that this lens can do this Tim

some of the images are in the half to 3/4 mb size

 

[spudhead]

Are you shooting off a tripod? Mine are handheld, which could be limiting me some.

Sorry no free hand Tim natural light

 

[spudhead]

Sorry no free hand Tim natural light

I feel that maybe I could get slightly sharper images if I used dmf to tweak focus

 

[spudhead]

I don't know. I think the camera is more accurate than my eyes. Using DMF is still going to depend on peaking and enlargements, which is effectively depending on the camera. Gone are the day of prisms in the viewfinder!

Mine are natural light as well. Looking at the exif I shot that image at 1/250 and ISO 400, pretty doggone slow for a 600mm lens, but a testament to the system's stabilization. Next time I give it a whirl I'll bump my ISO and get the shutter speed up some. You and Kev are both using a much higher ISO, which I have a very hard time doing. It just feels...wrong!

Do you shoot in manual? I shoot manual 99% of the time as here in the Uk the weather tends to be dull, this year is an exception, so with 6.3 being the best we have I tend to be up on shutter speed and iso and often tweak exp dial

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Agreed.

@Kevriano, how much are you cropping with the R-IV monster?

It varies, for that shot, very little, though it was shot in crop mode to start. On this shot I cropped down to around 3mb.

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 200

 

[mapleleaf56]

These 2 images where shot with the 200-600 at closet focal point with A9ii..

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

 

[mapleleaf56]

Now following along with this excellent thread..
After using a birding lens for macro, I used a macro lens for birding and got these.

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

 

[spudhead]

Almost always. Even when I'm in my custom programmed mode at the drag strip I shoot in M. I guess I've been doing it so long I just find it more natural. The difference is there I use auto-ISO with a limit of 640 or 800 depending on the light, and when I'm shooting around the back yard and other 'stuff', I set ISO manually and leave it.

The only time I don't use M is when I'm out and about driving. I used to go on backroad photo drives, just to see what I could see. Many photos were made sitting in the vehicle in the middle of the road and I didn't have a lot of time, so I'd set the camera to P mode and let it run. That way if I did want a specific shutter mode or aperture, I could just spin a dial and know I was getting decent exposure.

While I won't say 'never', the amount of times you'll find my camera in A, S, or iA, are almost exactly that, never.

These 2 images where shot with the 200-600 at closet focal point with A9ii..View attachment 25203View attachment 25204

Now following along with this excellent thread..
After using a birding lens for macro, I used a macro lens for birding and got these.
View attachment 25205View attachment 25206View attachment 25207

Just shows how good we have it, the glass and camera bodies are really good, its just a case of learning to get the best from the excellent kit available

 

[mapleleaf56]

Nice. One item that's evolved as part of this discussion is how much the images are cropped. Any idea where these ended up?

This is the uncropped version of the first photo..

• ILCE-9M2
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

 

[mapleleaf56]

Just shows how good we have it, the glass and camera bodies are really good, its just a case of learning to get the best from the excellent kit available

I totally agree… the best move I’ve made regarding photography was leaving Nikon for Sony..

 

[spudhead]

some of the images are in the half to 3/4 mb size

I just checked Tim the bee shots range from 730kb to a massive 1.5mb and yes, the 730 kb shot shows it its softer but that's the point of the exercise

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I dont think their is a debate over Macro versus close up photography and many photography competitions recognise the difference based upon magnification level.

For sure there are some excellent images in this thread, as close up images, and as has been pointed out the crops are very heavy and it seems some of the better images were tripod based also.

Current camera technology/resolution, post processing developments and lens quality provides for such excellent cropped images but macro is another world and based upon true macro subject magnifications of 1:1 and greater, as we all know. the emphasis is different.

Again as we all know some macro lenses can be used to infinity focus and again will yield excellent images at much lower magnification than 1;1.

The attached is a crop from a x2 100 stack tiff image converted to JPG at 3/2 format and 10" image at 300 DPI resolution and whilst i do not suggest this is in any way a good image or comparable to the quality of the images by kev and spud, as its in need of substantial improvement, but as an initial foray into the capability of my louwa x2 85mm lens it illustrates the difference of higher magnification/detailed images versus close up fully sharp/resolved but lower detail/size images.

Absolutely, seeing the quality of the images by Kev, Spud et al I am sure many photography enthusiasts would prefer to see fully sharp close up images over the in your face highly magnified/detailed macro images , partially sharp or fully stacked, at 1:1 magnification and above.

Ultimately its a question of taste and additional effort in producing acceptable true macro images at high magnification and fine detail over an alternate lower level of magnification and detail but nevertheless very pleasing and high quality images in their own right.

View attachment 25210

 

[mapleleaf56]

I’m loving this thread…
Following on from previous.. I decided to try my Tamron 24mm 2.8 with close up shots.. I have to say I’m pretty impressed..
Here’s a shot of a beaver jawbone and a shot of my setup..

• ILCE-7RM4A
• E 24mm F2.8 F051
• 24.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 400

• iPhone 13
• iPhone 13 back dual wide camera 5.1mm f/1.6
• 5.1 mm
• ƒ/1.6
• 1/120 sec
• ISO 100

 

[pointreyes]

Just get closer with a macro lens and look at the fun you will have with the bug's reaction.

_A731957-86.jpg

• pointreyes
• Aug 7, 2020

It was not happy with me taking a 20mm 4:1 macro near its face. Uncropped image and yes, very narrow DoF at 4:1.
I really need to get back into using my flash or flashes like I did for this shot.

 

[spudhead]

I dont think their is a debate over Macro versus close up photography and many photography competitions recognise the difference based upon magnification level.

For sure there are some excellent images in this thread, as close up images, and as has been pointed out the crops are very heavy and it seems some of the better images were tripod based also.

Current camera technology/resolution, post processing developments and lens quality provides for such excellent cropped images but macro is another world and based upon true macro subject magnifications of 1:1 and greater, as we all know. the emphasis is different.

Again as we all know some macro lenses can be used to infinity focus and again will yield excellent images at much lower magnification than 1;1.

The attached is a crop from a x2 100 stack tiff image converted to JPG at 3/2 format and 10" image at 300 DPI resolution and whilst i do not suggest this is in any way a good image or comparable to the quality of the images by kev and spud, as its in need of substantial improvement, but as an initial foray into the capability of my louwa x2 85mm lens it illustrates the difference of higher magnification/detailed images versus close up fully sharp/resolved but lower detail/size images.

Absolutely, seeing the quality of the images by Kev, Spud et al I am sure many photography enthusiasts would prefer to see fully sharp close up images over the in your face highly magnified/detailed macro images , partially sharp or fully stacked, at 1:1 magnification and above.

Ultimately its a question of taste and additional effort in producing acceptable true macro images at high magnification and fine detail over an alternate lower level of magnification and detail but nevertheless very pleasing and high quality images in their own right.

View attachment 25210

Thanks for adding to the thread, none of my images were tripod based!!!! all freehand read the thread, it is not a debate on macro verses closeup just an exercise in finding the limits of one lens only the 200-600, do you imagine for one moment I have never shot macro or don't know the difference!! if you have images from the 200-600 please add them

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

First of all and as I understand it this forum is a democracy not an autocracy so pls save me the grief and get down from your high horse.

N0-one in fact questioned your images and to the contrary I recognized all the images in the thread as of high quality. On the matter of reading posts I suggest YOU READ MY POST on the matter of use of tripods…..your name was never mentioned.

I regularly post images with my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm-600mm but have no desire to follow your overbearing advice…..I decide when, where and how to post my images.

On what you have or haven’t shot I have no clue and don’t wish to know , but I do know such ridiculous outbursts say more about you and your character than your shots ever will…….

 

[spudhead]

First of all and as I understand it this forum is a democracy not an autocracy so pls save me the grief and get down from your high horse.

N0-one in fact questioned your images and to the contrary I recognized all the images in the thread as of high quality. On the matter of reading posts I suggest YOU READ MY POST on the matter of use of tripods…..your name was never mentioned.

I regularly post images with my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm-600mm but have no desire to follow your overbearing advice…..I decide when, where and how to post my images.

On what you have or haven’t shot I have no clue and don’t wish to know , but I do know such ridiculous outbursts say more about you and your character than your shots ever will…….

I do not recall offering advise to you at any point and would never do so because of course we all know you have a great depth of knowledge which is beyond question and the thread simply was to engage members on the 200-600, that is it, obviously you are free to start a thread on close up versa macro

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I was trying to draw the distinction between true macro versus close up photography in a discussion around close up limits of the 200-600mm lens, in making what i thought was a helpful contribution to the discussion.

Even in your post you refer to pseudo-macro which in a purely accurate sense does not exist, if the image is not 1:1 magnification or higher it is not Macro in a photography sense- maybe i am too much of a purist but at no time was I out to discredit anyone's knowledge or shooting methods...that was all, case closed from my end.

 

[mapleleaf56]

I’ve only been a member for a short while but already I’ve noticed certain members who tend to take over a thread …
I was really enjoying this thread, enjoying at first using the 200-600 and then being inspired to try different lenses and see how close you could get..
But unfortunately as has happened before in a thread of my own it has been ruined by a particular member and his overbearing comments.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

When you participate in a democracy free opinion/speech is the norm, good bad or indifferent, people can either ignore or engage......

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

While that is an anticipated response, it is nonetheless unfortunate. I choose to ignore going forward.

That is fine, i find that very fortunate and will not lose any sleep over your non communication. Do however stick to your choice as you have not done so in the past, as has been raised previously, and which you are well aware of.

 

[Jeff A]

So, I spent some time yesterday in changeable light trying to find the limits of the 200-600 lens used as a macro lens I believe the shots are all at 600mm so minimum focus distance around 2.3 metres although I could be wrong. please add your thoughts on the lens for close ups and add shots from the lens regardless of body used View attachment 25190View attachment 25191View attachment 25192View attachment 25193View attachment 25194View attachment 25195View attachment 25196View attachment 25197View attachment 25198View attachment 25199View attachment 25200and shots from the lens regardless of body used

Every one of them looks near perfect to me. From the photographer's standpoint ( I don't do Macro) is shooting with your long lens any more difficult than with a Macro lens?

 

[spudhead]

Every one of them looks near perfect to me. From the photographer's standpoint ( I don't do Macro) is shooting with your long lens any more difficult than with a Macro lens?

Jeff for sure shooting with a true macro lens is way harder, it's just the 200-600 seems so good at most things and close up at 7.8 feet ie 600 mm minimum focus distance its crazy what images the lens is capable of, thanks for looking

 

[Jeff A]

Jeff for sure shooting with a true macro lens is way harder, it's just the 200-600 seems so good at most things and close up at 7.8 feet ie 600 mm minimum focus distance its crazy what images the lens is capable of, thanks for looking

I said that I don't shoot Macro but out of my memory banks, while trying to get a shot of an Egret with my Sony 100-400 GM, a bee landed on a flower in front of me and I made a successful shot. It is nicer to know what your equipment is capable of so you can grab a bonus shot when the opportunity arrises.