Macro Lens - Again

[Chris Pickford]

A popular (ie boring) theme of which macro lens to go for......

There is a good and detailed review of mid focal length macro lenses in last week's Amateur Photographer for those considering buying a macro lens. The lenses tested are the Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Sigma, 50, 60 & 70mm lenses. The review considered resolution, contrast, chromatic aberration etc, and the final rating took these factors plus others into account.

Very briefly, the Nikon rated the highest, with the others roughly in equal place behind.

I have the Nikon lens which was tested (60 mm Micro AF-D) and it is stunning for immobile insects (the resolution far exceeds my D70's, and even Provia 100F) but it is a rather short focal length for butterflies and other mobile insects (unless they've been in the fridge!).

Chris

[Chris]

I have the both the Sigma 70mm and Sigma 150mm.

The image quality of the 70mm is better than the 150mm, but the lens suffers from not having internal focusing and it doesn't feel quite as solid. Also, as Chris highlights, it isn't always hugely practical for butterflies and odonata. I bought it because it allows me greater flexibilty when composing pictures, particularly of flowers and roosting butterflies.

[Hamearis]

Less than 150mm gives aproachability probs with most butties.
50/70mm is for flowers ect.
SigmaEX/Canon/Nikon ; nuffing to choose between them. All brill.
Hamearis

[eccles]

Funnily enough, I've always known that Minolta macro lenses were the best. What a shame they weren't even tested.
But your choice of lens will be determined by the mount you most likely already have, so you have to decide whether to go for the OEM or the third party lens. In terms of image quality there will not be a lot in it, but I'm not so sure about build quality of the Sigmas. I have a Sigma 105 EX macro. It is tack sharp but the AF ring gear is not as tough as it should be and I had to replace mine recently.
But shooting butterflies is all about the insect and not the lens. I shoot most of mine with a Canon acromatic close up lens on a telezoom, a few with the Sigma 105, and some with a Sigma 400mm Telemacro. The latter is very handy if your butterfly is halfway up a tree.

[Leif]

If you are willing to get up before sunrise, or toddle out an hour before the sun sets, then a 100mm lens will be fine as the insects will be inactive. As the sun rises, sleepy butterflies spread their wings, to catch the early sun, and that is a good moment to get a photo. Later in the day you will be hard pushed to get a capture of a butterfly basking with a 100mm lens (It can be done, but it can be frustrating.) A 200mm lens makes to easier, though it is not always easy to get the sensor plane parallel to the butterfly. A 400mm lens makes it even easier, with the same caveat.

Like you I am a Nikon user. I have various micro lenses: 60mm F2.8 AF, 105mm F2.8 AFD, 85mm F2.8 TS, 200mm F4 AIS, 200mm F4 AFD and the Tamron 90mm F2.8 AFD which will be for sale soon. IMO Nikon lenses produce images with the typical Nikon look and feel. The Tamron is an excellent lens, but produces warmer images, and has lower micro contrast. What this means is that images look very slightly flatter. This is not a flaw, but a characteristic. I also have the Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Macro, which also produces warm images, and with lower microcontrast. It is a nice lens though.

And to get back to your question, a colleague bought the Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro lens. It looks well made, has decent optics, and cost £350 new. This IMO would be the most affordable and versatile option. I use my 200mm F4 AFD micro lens most of the time, due to the long reach, and the narrow field of view allowing smooth backgrounds. I was lucky enough to have the readies to buy the Nikon, but otherwise I would have bought a third party lens. But you will need a good tripod and head, and use good technique.

I agree with Eccles that knowing the insect not the camera is key, though appropriate equipment helps.

[Rogerdodge]

a colleague bought the Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro lens. It looks well made, has decent optics, and cost £350 new.

Leif

I would love to know where you can get this for anything less than £450.
Even HK suppliers on E-Bay are £450ish inc. P&P.
UK Retailers are £500 to £550.

I have had mine for 7 years now, and it is really tough. I am notorious for being a bit rough with my kit (it is just a tool after all), and it is only just starting to have a little wobble where the two bits of barrel join under the tripod ring. I am sure Sigma will sort this out when I send it in for a service after the season ends. Perhaps they will also clean the tern s**t off the focussing rubber!

It is, by the way, worth every penny of whatever you pay for it..

Roger

[Leif]

"I would love to know where you can get this for anything less than £450."

I think it was on ebay, and it was from a UK seller a year or two ago. My colleague was worried it was stolen, so checked the serial number against a batch of stolen lenses, and it was kosher.