Type of lens for Macro butterfly photography (1 Viewer)

[lee_adc]

Hi,

I am upgrading from my trusty Fuji S5000. I really enjoy butterfly photography and have had some responsable success. (www.flickr.com/photos/leeadc).

I am going to upgrade and was originally going to get a Canon S3 IS. But am really tempted by a DSLR.

So I'am going for a Canon 400D, but am confused by the choice of macro lens.

I have seen two, but don't under how they would be used. The two are a 50mm fixed sigma macro lens and the other is a 28-300mm zoom sigma macro.

Both these lens seem to focus down to the same distance (the macro being 20cm and the zoom being 50cm at all focal lengths).

Help...

 

[pauliev69]

Hi Lee,
take a look at next months (out now) Practical Photography magazine, the issue has a big feature on Macro.
Comparison tests on 8 Macro lens, it should make your choice a lot clearer.
I do a lot of Butterfly and Moth Macro work in the Summer and last year purchased the Tamron 90mm Di over the Canon EF 100mm.
£100 cheaper, 200g lighter and I couldnt find a difference in image quality.
Not saying this is the best for you but its worth "having a try before you buy" if you can.
Hope this helps
Regards
PaulV

 

[robski]

Lee 2 things to consider with marco work

1) is magnification factor, the 50mm is 1:1 which means the subject is life size on the sensor and 1:3 is 1/3 life size on the sensor. As a butterfly is much bigger than your sensor you don't need to goto 1:1 unless you intend to photography smaller objects. In general I've found most lens give a 1/4 life size at minimum focus.

2) is Working distance, the distance between the lens and the subject. Focal distance is the distance between the subject and the sensor. On many camera you will see a datum line to indicate the position of the sensor. Will an in situ butterfly let you get your lens within 8 inches before taking flight ??

I known price maybe a factor in the lens you have picked out but I would choose neither of them if money was no object. Sometimes it's better to save up for the lens you will keep for life than have the extra expense of upgrading later.


The 50mm will mean you are very close to the subject. Look in the butterfly and moth gallery to see what people are using. 105mm & 150mm allow a better working distance. If you look at Adey Baker he often uses his 400mm Macro lens.

Secondly 28-300 x10 zooms are best avoided if you want quaility. They suffer with poor sharpness and a high degree of barrel and pincushion distortion. They make an ideal one lens solution travel lens where getting a shot is more important than quality.

 

[psilo]

I have used two types of macros, the sigma 105mm f2.8 and the canon 300mm zoom macro. The zoom macro I have never liked as it never produced sharp enough results for me. I prefer the sigma 105mm. This produces superb results but I do find it somewhat noisy and slow. Think I would have preferred the canon 100mm fixed but this lens is more expensive.

 

[postcardcv]

I have a Sigma 105mm macro lens and really like it, it gives 1:1 working ratio and the image quality is outstanding. However the focus is very slow, this can make photographing butterflies and dragonflies very frustrating. If I was buying one now Id be looking at the Canon 100mm, it has USM focusing so will be much faster than the Sigma.

 

[lee_adc]

Thanks for the comments.

The problem I have is money...I am trying to find a comprise between cost and quality. The other think is that I am going from a 3MP fuji compact to a DSLR, so I might be less concerned over quality reductions from the lens. I know thats the wrong way to see things. But if the lens becomes to expensive and if I won't be able to do butterfly photography then I will be back to a compact (canon S3)...

...I am just trying to weight up the cost/beneift of using a zoom macro instead of a fixed macro. Unfortunately the extra £100-£200 is a little too much to stretch to. I am already on the tip toes!

The bottom line is that I am happy with the camera I have appart from the lack of resolution/detail, manual control and noise!

So again the benchmark I have is a 3MP compact camera...so if the cheaper lens on a decent body beats my old camera into the ground I would be over the moon.

 

[postcardcv]

A cheaper option would be to go for something like the Sigma 28-135 macro. It is fairly swift focusing and delivers good IQ also only costs ~£100, it was the lens I used for macro work before I got the 105. Here's link to a shot taken with it - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/64432

 

[The Common Babbler]

Superzoom or DSLR plus macro

The Canon f2.8 100mm macro is capable of producing totally amazing results - if you want to see sharp details of a butterflies compounds eyes for example. If however, you want good, sharp photographs of a whole butterfly then the Canon S3is is capable of wonderful results in fact as a general purpose natural history camera it's difficult to beat if you factor in the low cost and small size/weight when compared to a DSLR. I'm really tempted to upgrade to a DSLR from my little canon S3 but it's just sooo good that the cost of the upgrade is difficult to justify.

 

[impotentspider]

Lee

Just buy the camera with its standard kit lens, this will probably focus to within 12" of the subject so will get you a reasonable size in the frame anyway (with butterflies) alternatively go for something like a 50-200mm, zoom in and snap away from a distance, then when you have the expense of the DSLR out of the way you can save up for a dedicated Macro, I can vouch for the Tamron, and mine is an older 1:2 version. I have a few pics in my gallery taken with it and some extension tubes. They were on my 6mp Pentax istD, I cant wait for this summer to try it on my new 10mp K10D, The Tamron's a superb lens and really solidly built, I would normally challenge anyone to a head to head with my Pentax glass but I have to put my hands up and say the Tamron is tremendous quality.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/48441

 

[ccsial]

Hi,

I am upgrading from my trusty Fuji S5000. I really enjoy butterfly photography and have had some responsable success. (www.flickr.com/photos/leeadc).

I am going to upgrade and was originally going to get a Canon S3 IS. But am really tempted by a DSLR.

So I'am going for a Canon 400D, but am confused by the choice of macro lens.

I have seen two, but don't under how they would be used. The two are a 50mm fixed sigma macro lens and the other is a 28-300mm zoom sigma macro.

Both these lens seem to focus down to the same distance (the macro being 20cm and the zoom being 50cm at all focal lengths).

Help...

For butterflies I like a bit more reach so I don't have to get too close. I use the Sigma 150 HSM Macro. It has superb optics, even with the 1.4 Sigma teleconverter.

 

[Leif]

Even 100mm is too little for an active butterfly, as you will need to get too close. You would have to locate them in the morning before they warm up, or maybe on damp days, or near sunset when they roost again. Ideally you need 200mm or more for an active butterfly, but a 200mm macro lens costs a small fortune, so let's not go there.

There are a few bargains. I recently saw a Sigma 300mm F4 AF lens (Nikon mount) go to £190 on ebay, and that gives you 1:3 reproduction which is enough for butterflies. And I bought from the same seller a Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Macro for £200 and that also gives 1:3. Initial tests suggest it will be capable of good results.

Sigma do a 70-300mm F4-5.6 AF lens with a close up diopter (Apochromatic Macro lens?) which screws onto the front, and which gives decent pictures when stopped down. Paul Harcourt Davies in his macro book shows examples. There might be a few Canon lenses which work well with a diopter. With luck a Canon user will advise you. (I use Nikon.) Canon and Nikon both sell diopters. Do avoid the single element ones as they are poor quality.

A word of caution with Sigma. If you buy a Canon camera, you might find that an old Sigma lens does not work with your camera, especially if your camera appeared after the lens was made. So try before you buy. Or buy from an honest seller who gives honest advice.

But ... if you do use a macro lens you will need good technique, which usually means a solid tripod and head. Macro really is a test of how carefully you work. But the rewards are worth it when you capture a particularly nice specimen.

 

[Nigel G]

A much discussed question on the UK Butterflies forum see the linked thread

www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=731

 

[Checkmate]

...Sigma do a 70-300mm F4-5.6 AF lens with a close up diopter (Apochromatic Macro lens?) which screws onto the front, and which gives decent pictures when stopped down...

I have this lens, the APO version, and I'm very pleased with it for a budget solution. It gives a ratio of 1:2 in Macro mode. Screwing on the Achromatic Macro Lens (similar to a filter) gives a ratio of almost 1:1 and works very well.

However, I don't think they make the Achromatic lens attachment any longer, but they come up on ebay every so often. I recently picked up a mint one for about £8.

 

[DenisG]

I have used two types of macros, the sigma 105mm f2.8 and the canon 300mm zoom macro. The zoom macro I have never liked as it never produced sharp enough results for me. I prefer the sigma 105mm. This produces superb results but I do find it somewhat noisy and slow. Think I would have preferred the canon 100mm fixed but this lens is more expensive.

AND

I have a Sigma 105mm macro lens and really like it, it gives 1:1 working ratio and the image quality is outstanding. However the focus is very slow, this can make photographing butterflies and dragonflies very frustrating. If I was buying one now Id be looking at the Canon 100mm, it has USM focusing so will be much faster than the Sigma.

NO true macro lens is fast focusing, usm or not, they are constructed on a very fine thread system. If you move the focus ring on a standard lens, say around 1/2", it will alter the focus point by a few yards. On a macro lens the same movement would only alter the focus point by a few mm, if that!. You make it sound that these lenses are inferior because of the focus speed and that is incorrect because even Canon, Nikon, and most Macro lenses (1:1 ratio or better) will always be slower than a standard. At 1:1 most macroists use manual for this very reason. The Tammy 90mm lens along with some others have a limiter switch on the lens barrel to assist in speeding up autofocus by limiting the amount of distance the lens elements move. Still best to use Manual in low light situations imho though.

True macro lenses handle differently, accept that. They are worth every penny but the Tammy 90mm and Sigma 105 are two of the best vfm lenses available today. Anything shorter, like 50-60mm you are, in the main, working too damn close and will lose a lot of shots of fast skitish critters.

Hope this helps.

Denis.