[anfractuosity]

The loupedeck you mention looks very interesting! I just found https://petapixel.com/2017/06/12/going-open-source-make-loup... which is rather interesting on using a MIDI controller for photography editing which I'm going to look into further, as the loupedeck is a bit pricey for me at the moment.

The photos you linked are really impressive, I'm curious how you managed such large DoF with the macro shots. I've only used macro rings before but found the DoF very shallow, do you use a tilt-shift lens out of interest?

[throwanem]

I'd love to try the Nikon 85mm tilt-shift macro, but it is extremely pricey and I don't know if it would suit me, not least because the sense I get is that tilt-shift takes a lot of setup for which I doubt I'd have time. Of the shots I linked, only the yellowjacket held (relatively!) still in one place for long enough that I might have had a chance; the others were far more typical in that they hardly ever stopped moving and I had to take what shots I could get. These were all done with a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR II, courtesy of my local camera store's used gear counter; for macro use, the VR and AF capabilities are totally superfluous, but the optics are excellent, it has a good working distance even at 1:1, and the extra features are handy for using it as a long prime and portrait lens.

The DoF just comes from stopping down a lot. The P. metricus shots are at f/32; the V. maculifrons I shot at f/25, and the spider wasps at f/22. The tradeoff with increasing ratios is diffraction vs. a more forgiving DoF; as I've gotten better at nailing focus by eye (and usually on eyes, which makes it easier due to their structure), I've found myself able to work with a wider aperture and a narrower DoF - that list is a progression in time, as well as in aperture width; the P. metricus shots are from mid-2019, the A. a. metallicus ones from late 2020. (The P. metricus and V. maculifrons were also shot on a crop-sensor body and the others on full-frame, which also makes a difference, including in DoF.)

You do need to add light at such narrow apertures, of course. I use three SB-R200s on a ring mount, with a controller on the hot shoe - a pretty pricey setup admittedly, but also one well suited to my particular use cases, including quick setup and teardown since everything has to fit in a backpack - I don't leave my cameras behind at home, they're no use to me there. For a rig that doesn't need to be put together and taken apart on a daily basis, you can do as well and much cheaper with a Lepp bracket and a couple of Ebay flashes plus an RF controller.

I don't know what to make of macro rings, if I'm honest. Even with a decent set that shouldn't have light leaks, I always end up with soft, hazy, weirdly defocused shots that just don't clean up well. I'm pretty sure it's not my technique, but I've seen enough good shots made with rings that I have to assume I'm doing something wrong and just haven't yet been able to work out what it is. It hasn't been a huge issue, but I'd like to figure it out someday, not least because a teleconverter is a really expensive way of adding magnification.

[CarVac]

Extension rings force lenses to operate far from their original design parameters, so they often result in tons of spherical aberration, field curvature, or astigmatism.

Some lenses work okay with them, others do not.

If you want more extreme macro, Laowa has some rather wild lenses, like their 25mm.

[throwanem]

5:1? That is wild! I didn't know about that one, but they do also have a 100mm 2:1 for $450, which is surprisingly affordable - less new than I paid for my used 105.

Granted I might still (eventually...) go with a TC-20 E III since it's only 10% more and I can also use it with my birding lens, but absent that constraint, I'd definitely be thinking hard about that Laowa 100mm.

edit: Well, I can use a 2x TC with my birding lens if I don't mind losing autofocus, anyway - the ones fast enough to AF with it all cost as much as a car...