Using a Telephoto lens to Photograph Flowers

[Discus]

Another option to use when working with small apertures is one or more flashes - I've used that a lot lately and it works quite well. Helps if you can use off-camera flash of course to adjust the lighting somewhat. If you're sneaky, you can light your subject and leave the background relatively so dark that it disappears.

Of course, people will look at you funny if you cart that much photo gear around in public, and spend that much time fussing over flower photos. Of course, if you use something like a butterfly bracket or macro/ring flash, there's a lot less faffing around.

[ronaldhanko]

You are correct that a flash is another option - I use a ring flash also in such situations. One does get a lot of odd looks and questions about whether one is a professional and so on.

[tucker85]

That's a beautiful photograph. Thanks for the good information.

[ronaldhanko]

Thanks for looking and commenting, tucker.

[Tindomul]

OK, I tried to do the same thing. The composition of my photo is not as good, but I really like the results of using a telephoto lens. The background is my window screen. I found that the farther away my camera was the clearer the screen came out in the photo. So brought my camera as close as I could to the flowers. The result was a blurry background.

[ronaldhanko]

Nice shot, Tindo. The blurred screen makes a nice background.

[Tindomul]

Thanks! Thanks for the tips.

[RosieC]

Interesting idea. I'm only just investigating SLR's and lenses (don't own one yet just thinking about the posibility) so it's really interesting to see what people are doing.

[tropterrarium]

Here's an example of an Epipactis gigantea shot in Joshua Tree National Monument at the 49 Palms Oasis. It was done with a 300 mm f/4 OM Zuiko lens on an OM4, back in 2002. The background is the skirt of a palm (Washingtonia filifera) that is just a couple of feet behind, but completely out of focus.

5604-1.jpg

Second example is a Chaenactis artemisiifolia shot in Rocky Peak State Park (Los Angeles area). this time with a Canon 300 mm f/2.8 IS at f6.3 on a full frame dSLR (5dmkII). Couldn't get closer to the plant, so used the long tube.

8277-4.jpg

I also use the 300 lens for reptiles, then often with extension rings to get a little closer. Image quality suffers a bit, as the lens errors get magnified with the image, but sure beats getting bitten by a rattle snake.

With those long beasts, it is important to use a very sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up/self-timer/live view, cable release, the works. The 300 seems to be the best compromise between still covering decent distance, but also being able to do close-ups. Notice, that longer lenses get worse and worse closest focus capabilities. Once in a while, I slap a 1.4 converter on there to get 420 mm.

In LF, I have a 720 mm (in the Tele Nikkor tripple convertible 360/500/720 combo), but mostly use the 360 and the 500. The 720 on 4x5" corresponds approximately to a 240 mm on full frame SLR. It's a real pain to use, particularly with movements because of the tele design.

[ChasWG]

Great examples folks!

Here's a few of my attempts using a 70-200 f4L, 1/200 @ f5 ISO 100


1/1000 @ f5 ISO 200


1/250 @ f7.1 ISO 200 off camera flash fired at 1/16th power 52mm of extension tubes was also used for this one.