Recent Posts

Yeah, the real reason for dual illuminate profiles is that camera sensors can have  illuminant metameric failure because a sensor is tuned to a certain illuminate (using daylight such as D50 or D55, but could be D65–depends on the sensor). The tricolor separation filters for the Bayer array may not perform the same way under daylight as they do under tungsten (in fact it's highly unlikely that they would).

So, the dual illuminate should take care of that. Aside from the spikey light sources, there's another reason one might want to create special DNG profiles and that is to modify the sensor response to certain specific colors like John Deer green, or Budweiser red or Kodak yellow (ok, less important these days :~(

However, the X-Rite solution does offer DNG profile editing...for that you would need the free DNG Profile Editor available on Adobe Labs. You can build an X-Rite profile in the Passport software then edit that profile in DPE to tune colors. It's really not hard...(only a little geeky) but the documentation is very well done (by our own Eric Chan–MadManChan).

You might want to try the 67 55mm.  Most regard the 3rd version as one of the best 67 lenses. 

Did a bit more digging and found a Henry's that had one in stock and picked it up.  No time to set it up tonight, but definitely looking forward to it tomorrow

Either way, thanks again for all your help on this topic!

I used extension tubes on the Canon 70-200 F4 and the 100 Macro I with reasonable success. Focusing is strange on the zoom, with easier focus control coming from change in focal length than change in the focus control.

It is, however, not exactly in the macro range, it is more like fairly extreme closeup.

Alan

I also use a Canon 90mm TS-E with extension tubes for macro. I do a lot of macro on backpacking trips, and this lens is exquisitely sharp and is relatively light in weight. I use the tilt function for virtually all my macro work.

Canon's 90mm TS-E with extension tubes and/or teleconverter is great for macro. It's sharp, but the ability to manipulate the plane of focus is a big advantage over a normal macro lens.

I'm thinking of tubes or diopters ; I have the 85 1.2 and the 135 2. Need to get a bit closer than the lenses allow, in order to image some testcharts and evaluate their quality (quality of the chart, not the lens).

Edmund

I usually use my Canon 100mm macro due to it's excellent edge to edge sharpness. However, I also use the Canon 250D diopter which is very high quality. Nothing wrong with using extension tubes either. Non macro lenses just aren't optimized for really close focus but the results can still be fantastic. When I shot 4x5 large format film, I never owned a macro lens and used my 5 different lenses close focus because the bellows allowed it. You can get a set of automatic Kenko tubes and the 250D for very good prices.  Teleconverters can also be used to allow for a much shorter minimum focusing distance since they increase lens magnification without changing the minimum focusing distance. I've used my 300mm lens with my 1.4 and 2x converters to allow me to focus a lot closer than the ~4-5 ft since I would then have the equivalent of 420-600mm (full frame) or 672-960mm (Canon crop sensor). Those focal lengths focusing that close is good magnification.

Cheers!

Canon's 90mm TS-E with extension tubes and/or teleconverter is great for macro. It's sharp, but the ability to manipulate the plane of focus is a big advantage over a normal macro lens.

Great image and the comp is perfect as is ! But for me I would be all over that
image with dodge and burn, just to add more drama but that's just me.

Take care,
Dwayne Oakes

But that's cheating, Craig: this isn't really the implied single exposure either.

;-)

Rob C

Cheating?  It's just more tools Rob.

http://www.craiglamson.com/rvbuild.gif