Interesting. I would have thought you'd get better magnification with shorter focal length, but apparently not. So the only answer is stacking more tubes and going manual. I've put two of those 36 mm Kenkos after 100/2.8 L IS, but the added benefit from the second is not that great and the minimum m...

That makes more sense. :wink: Does that actually mean that with the tube your min focus distance @ f=400 equals max focus distance @ f=250mm? You should be able to focus closer @ f=350 than @ f=400. Just don't touch the focus and move to focus to check this. The question is what focal length gives y...

That's what I thought first, but then it was mentioned that

Gruditch wrote:it it will only focus between about 30ft and 4ft, and you can't focus at all under 250mm

I confess I'm totally lost. I would understand that effect if the focus point got inside the lens, but apparently that is not the case here. Can you at least adjust the focus (without achieving it) or is that locked too?

I guess that worked both ways.

Do you mean that it doesn't auto-focus under 250 mm setting or is there something preventing manual focus too? I didn't think of that possibility as I do all the macros with manual focus.

It does restrict that. I tend to use 100 mm macro for moths and that is pretty much always combined with 32 mm extension. The maximum distance is enough for pretty large ones and the minimum allows quite small ones. MP-E 65 can't handle the larger ones. I would have thought using different focal len...

Gruditch wrote:Canon 100-400, with a Canon 25mm extension tube. ...The only drew back is the minimum working distance can sometimes catch you out.

That's surprising. I would think you'd get pretty close at the 100 mm setting. Anybody care to test the magnification ratio?

padfield wrote:4 is Eurranthis plummistaria - 'Le Plumet'.

No wonder I didn't find it. I went through the entire Geometridae on www.lepiforum.de, BUT only the species found in the Germany, Austria or Schwitzerland.

I'd say the first is Scopula submutata, but the fourth is a total mystery and it SHOULD be easy.

I agree with the Boloria dia. I've also found M. galathea, where its not supposed to be according to Collins. That was a couple of days away from Santiago, so still a Northern location.

The Annoying Czech wrote: and some sexy tame moth I believe to be Pterophorus pentadactyla (?).

More likely Gillmeria pallidactyla and definitely not G. tetradactyla/ochrodactyla.

I'd guess Scotopteryx chenopodiata for the moth. It doesn't look quite typical, but I can't think of anything else either.

Pieris napi.

I had guessed on P. armoricanus . It was larger than P. malvae - roughly between P. alveus and P. andromedae . Yep, the Spialia was rather obvious considering there is only one species in Spain. Other names were T. sylvestris , M. cinxia , M. phoebus and P. icarus . It didn't occur to me the names w...

Just a note to the previous: The first cat is Proserpinus proserpina and the the micro is Ecpyrrhorrhoe rubiginalis.

Guy, could you take a look at the Pyrgus...

Scotopteryx chenopodiata and Idaea rusticata. The cat MIGHT be young Orqyia antiqua.

2012?

Edit: It seems Guy is always faster.

The P. phoebe is indeed gorgeous. That's one species I've always wanted to see, but haven't.

Well, well, well. This is going better than I hoped! :D Considering that both of the more or less certain M. parthenoides are from the same place (O' Cebreiro) as the two underside pictures, I think I can guess the most likely species... 8) The last one looks weird, doesn't it? And thanks again! You...

I disagree with the first one. The rearwing coloring screams A. adippe to me. The B. hecate is right.

Oh well Guy beat me to it.

BTW, I'm back...

The first gets the exact same comments as the third in the first batch. The second is Ipimorpha subtusa and the third is POSSIBLY Campaea margaritata. Personally, I'd love the find the last one, but its a southern species...