• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

My World: Dragonfly

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
9726437925_41e97eacb7_c.jpg


One for the Road: Chris Calohan​
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
70-200 2.8 w/1.7 extender, 1/100 @ 2.8 ISO 100

or that was this one and the other is the 100mm Tokina 2.8 Macro shot at the same settings. I did a boo-boo a couple of weeks back and somehow fouled an entire picture set so I can't go back and check the data.

9721462297_97d8a73cce_c.jpg


Camouflaged: Chris Calohan​
 
Interesting; I might have thought there was a smaller aperture. Regardless, nice shot.

And I actually like the second one even more - love the detail and color on the head/eye.
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
2.8 is as much as I can squeeze out of that lens. I'm almost positive the second one is from the Tokina which I've found to be a nice piece of glass.
 
2.8 is as much as I can squeeze out of that lens. I'm almost positive the second one is from the Tokina which I've found to be a nice piece of glass.

Just to clarify, I meant smaller aperture, like f/8 or f/11, to increase the depth of field, which is at its narrowest when shooting wide-open (f/2.8 on the 70-200, although now that I think about it, it would be a stop smaller than that, perhaps 4.0 or so, because of the teleconverter).
 
Top