Lefty’s Deceiver on a macro lens.

Thread starter #1

BeefMaster

Senior Member
Whilst out for a “boat ride,” also known as fishin’ and ain’t catchin’, I broke out the macro lens to see what I could see. In hindsight I think should have stopped it down to 2.8 to get a little more of the fly.
3CE231E6-7C35-4943-A3FE-7265AB56340E.jpeg
 
Last edited:

rip18

Senior Member
Good one! The parts that are important are sharp!

Maybe stopped down to f/22 to get more of the fly? f/2.8 would have a VERY shallow depth of field.
 
Thread starter #6
Good one! The parts that are important are sharp!

Maybe stopped down to f/22 to get more of the fly? f/2.8 would have a VERY shallow depth of field.
I shot it wide open at f2.0 to get the good bokeh is why I considered 2.8. It might have haven needed a little more than 2.8 to get all the fly, especially the nice grizzly hackle feathers that are part of the tail but I’m afraid that f22 would have been too much. I should have kept that composure and stopped it down at different apertures and shot and then picked the best one of later. Thinking about it now, I focused on aperture and low ISO too much and could have fiddled with the aperture AND exposure and still kept the low ISO. I’m very much the novice and I appreciate all the advice and kind words.
 
Last edited:
Yep, f/2.8 would have given you more than f/2.0 for sure, but probably not a lot more.


When shooting macros, two things are working against you, the longer macros have shallower depths of field, and the closer something is to the sensor/lens, the shallower the depth of field.

You can calculate the depth of field using several web sites; I use Depth of Field Master every now & then: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Yes, shooting a few at different apertures will give you more options later. But, all-in-all, you got a good one already. (I can usually find something that I really don't like about all my images - I guess that gives me reasons to keep trying!).

Keep the cool shots coming!
 
Top