Taken from yesterday. The spider has a wasp parasite on it - it'll eventually feed on the spider and kill it. I'm really happy with the fly shot too - nailed focus, composition and lighting imho. Good to get back in the swing of macro things. Not bad for being rusty lol.
Dave
PS Troy & Andrew - I'll probably work on the DF and Damsels over the next few days.
Frank - I took 2 images, and both turned out to be very good shots. So, 2 from 2. I generally tend to have few through aways, although I'm quite rusty at the moment, so I had only 71 keepers from 105 shots and I probably deleted 10 or so in the field. So it seems that I seem to have a good keeper ratio.
Woah Dave! That parasite shot is disturbing / unusual / depressing / interesting all roled into one. I get a similar feeling, about shots of NZ bees with parasites on them, I really hope a I never see a parasite on a bee here. Great shot all round mate.
I was actually shooting one of those guys last night, it was the second largest in my yard. I was shooting down one of the main webs strands (escape strands), when I must of brushed it with the lens. He came running at my lens / face full spidey speed in attack mode, scared the heck out of me.
Thanks Chris. Yes, the macro lenses are primes. Focal length is pretty much like any other lens, although it does have a bearing on what we call "working distance", which is, as you've probably guessed, the distance between you and the subject. Shorter focal lengths have a smaller working distance, longer focal lengths, longer. The advantage of shorter focal lenths like Canon's 60mm macro is size & weight (as well as the minimum shutter speed required to combat camera shake). Longer lenses like my Sigma 150mm are not, imho, for the beginner. They are too longer, too heavy and too hard to handle. Better to go a smaller & lighter macro lens imho, it'll provide far less frustration.
To give you some idea - the Canon 100mm has a working distance of around 15cm. The Sigma 150mm, around 20cm. That extra distance can be handy when dealing with sensitive insects like Mantids, Damselflies, Dragonflies and Butterflies. I say can be.
All macro lenses are typically very sharp, and have very little barrel or pin distortion.
Read an article in a photomag today. The author disputed wether a real macro must be capable of 1:1. Sort of inferred that this was a "purist" idea and lenses that have a macro "option" may be adequate for many users. Me - I would take the real macro anytime!
Technically, it's micro (1:1), macro is in reality, something else (greater than 10x from memory). Somehow, the term macro has stuck. Most hardcore imagers consider macro 1:1 or greater. I'm a bit more flexible here, and thankfully, a lot of other macro imagers are as well. Myself, I'm not really a fan of the ultra high magnification that some shoot (primarily with Canon's MPE-65, which can give from 1x to 5x magnification). I *prefer* to generally show the insect or arachnid in its environment.
The fly shot is well controlled - hard to not get highlights with those shiny buggers.
