Lenses

[Tony Moore]

Can anyone help, please.

I am going to upgrade from my compact to a DSLR (O, the siren voices!). I very much like being able to use the compact at arm's length, so am pretty well decided on a Sony A350 with its 'live view' function. The problem is - which lens? I only want this camera for photographing insects and I don't like carrying a shed full of equipment around. I would like to be able to photograph any large butterfly with a fair amount of surrounding vegetation (say, a field of about 21''x15'' max) and also insect eggs with sufficient magnification for identification (10x, 20x??). Are both of these objectives possible with a single lens? Also, is there any advantage to be gained from a 100mm macro over a 50mm macro apart from not having to get so close to the subject? Can one hold a camera with a 100mm macro lens without a pod and avoid ANY camera shake? I would be very grateful for any advice.

Antonym.

[eccles]

On the A350, it's a pretty good camera, and in good light the 14 mp sensor is a class leader, although in low light the equivalent Canon is probably better. But the Canon's live view isn't as good and it doesn't have in-body image stabilisation. Personally, I didn't think the screen was bright enough when I tried one, and that it might be difficult to use in bright light. It's important to try before you buy.

The accepted way of photographing butterflies is to get a Sigma 150 macro, and such a route will do you very well, if a little on the expensive side. But it depends on whether you really have to buy new. If you do get the A350, see if you can pick up a beercan (Minolta 70-210 F4). They're going on ebay for about £100. It will close focus to about three feet, and at maximum zoom will give decent framing with a red admiral. I also have an achromatic +2 dioptre close up lens that I can screw on the front of the beercan and that combo is good enough for small blue. I frequently go shooting butterflies and dragonflies with just this set up and rarely come away empty handed.

If you wish to go the macro lens route, then as already suggested, the popular choice is the Sigma 150 macro as this will enable a respectable distance to the subject and avoid spooking it. You can do it with a 105mm but be aware that the working distance of 0.3 meter includes the camera and lens so when using this lens the front of the lens will be around 6" away from the subject.


You can check out http://www.dyxum.com for reviews on various lenses including this one.

I like the working distance of the beercan, and although it has to be said that the potential resolution of a proper macro lens is better, I can still resolve individual wing scales with the beercan.

I shot this white admiral today with my beercan on an A700, hand held using natural light from around three feet away. Nothing else was used. It's resized from about a 3/4 full frame image.

DSC00343.jpg (91.49 KiB) Viewed 1736 times

[Rogerdodge]

Antonym
I feel that you are going to have to learn a new technique.
Holding a DSLR at arms length, with a decent macro lens on it, is nigh on impossible.
Compacts, because of the short focal length lens, and the closeness to the subject, are far more forgiving of camera shake.
Having an eye to a viewfinder, I feel, makes checking focus much easier, and you get to see all the photo taking information so much more clearly. It also acts as a 'brace' to the camera.

The 150mm Sigma Macro is certainly the most commonly used lens for butterfly photography - at least on this forum!? It is also a great lens, and you would not be making a mistake getting one.
However, there are also advocates for the 100mm or 105mm although these mean a much closer approach to the subject.
Personally I have the Sigma 180mm Macro, it is a belter of a lens, but needs careful use to avoid the effects of camera shake.
I feel that the new 70mm Sigma Macro is probably too short for consistent insect work, but I have seen great results from it.
There are 50mm Macro lenses available, and these are too short for insects, but fabulous for flowers and suchlike - however, add a couple of extension tubes and you have an excellent device for early stage photography.
Also consider 70-200 zooms or the 100-400 Canon zoom – these are versatile lenses, but may need extension tubes for really small stuff. They have (or are available with) IS/VR/OS – the various acronyms for image stabilisation – very useful.

Nearly all available macro lenses focus to 1:1. This means that at the closest focus, the subject is life-size on the sensor. In reality, a female Small Blue will just overflow the frame.
In order to photograph even smaller subjects (eggs for example) you have 4 main options.

Firstly, Close-up 'filters'. These are magnifying lenses attached to the front of the lens. They don't offer massive magnification, and do reduce the image quality a little. They do the job though.

Secondly, extension tubes - these just move the lens away from the camera body, allowing much smaller subjects to fill the frame. They are not expensive; maintain all the functions of the camera if you get the right type, (Auto-exposure and even Auto-Focus up to a point). The shorter the focal length of the lens, the more effective the tubes are. They do reduce the light, and thus extend exposure times

Thirdly, bellows - these perform the same function as the extension tubes, but allow easier change of length. They are more cumbersome, and, unless you pay a fortune, don't allow auto-exposure.

Fourthly, (and this is only available in Canon fit) is the extraordinary Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x Macro Lens. This beast is about £700, or £500 on E-Bay. (It will be my next major purchase.) It will only focus from 1:1 to a mind-blowing 5:1 - so this is no multi-purpose lens - you won't even be able to get far enough away to photograph Small Blue!! It does, however, give fabulous macro shots that can't be seen with the naked eye. It really has to be used with flash, and this, of course, adds to the expense.

Finally, for sharp photographs, some help is essential - whether this is from a monopod, tripod, elbows rested on something solid, or IS/VR/OS.
Just hand-holding will mean a compromise - forcing faster shutter speeds than may give the best photograph.

You are about to embark on a learning curve.
Your first photographs on your DSLR will be worse than those you took on your compact, and you will find yourself thinking "Why did I bother?", but persevere, and the results will be worth it.
Have fun, and don't forget to show us some of your results - good or bad. I am sure that the gurus on this forum will help you to improve by pointing out why your images may not be what you hoped for.
Being a member of this group has improved my photography more in the last 2 years than in all my 50+ years prviously.
Roger Harding

[Gruditch]

Hi Antonym, just take a look at the monthly comps, and see how many guys us Canon DSLRs, and how many of those use the Sigma 150, speaks for its self. You would do just as well to get a Sigma / Canon / Tamron 180mm Macro though.
I've never even turned on the live view on my 40D, and when you get used to using a DSLR, you will probably look back and laugh at your statment about wanting to use live view.

Gruditch

[Tony Moore]

Hi eccles, Rodgerdodge and Gruditch and many thanks for your help and advice. Back to the drawing board, I think.

Antonym.

[Hamearis]

Drawing board?
Snoring board more like.
Bite the bullet.
Canon 40D.
Sigma 150 Macro.
Good Monopod and Head.
Sorted.
Hamearis

[JKT]

I'd say that first you have to think just how much magnification you truly need. The numbers you first mentioned were quite extreme. Are you going to photograph micro-moth eggs?

Even 5x magnification on a crop body means that 4.5 mm long object fills the frame on the long direction. That should be enough for most butterfly eggs and then Canon MP-E65 should suffice, even though it is quite difficult to use. I'd rather prefer 100 mm lens with maximum magnification of 3, but that's just me dreaming.

Other methods for high magnification are reversed lenses (either in a bellows or in front of another lens). Some have combined them with very long extension tubes and 2x teleconverters. The results are impressive, but not exactly portable.

[Tony Moore]

Dear Hamearis,

You may be happy to cart 10 or 20lbs of equipment up Langdale Pike, but I ain't. I don't even take lunch!

AM

[Tony Moore]

Hi JKT and very many thanks for your advice

Antonym.

[Gruditch]

Canon 40D + Sigma 150 + Monopod and head, = only 6lb , just weighed it, god I'm a anorak

Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Gruditch and Antonym
My Canon 30D plus Manfrotto 679B Monopod (not carbon-fibre Gruditch!) and 234RC head with Sigma 180mm Macro weigh in at 6lb 10oz.
I have carried mine up Langdale Pike, around Bentley Wood, over Martin Down and along Heddons Mouth more times than I care to remember, along with a lunch fit for a king.
Often accompanied by 500mm F4.5 or a Bigma.
But then I am pretty fit for a fat old b*s*a*r*.

Roger

[Tony Moore]

Hi Y'all,

I post some pix taken with my Canon compact (IXUS 950). They have had to be considerably resized to get the website to accept them; the originals are significantly better. I would be interested in any expert comment - I'm pretty thick-skinned. Could I expect a sufficient improvement with a DSLR to warrant the expense of the upgrade? (and having to lug a boxful of toys around).

Tony Moore.

[Gruditch]

We will see how fit you are next weekend, and I wouldn't be seen dead with a nasty metal monopod, you anorak.
Antonym when I go out, I only take two lenses with me, and you can ask anyone who knows me, my camera bag is mostly full with food. When you get used to using a DSLR, you will find that owning and using all the various lenses is all part of the fun.
Now to your pics, the first one would of been better, had you got down a bit, so that the butterfly was at a better angle, otherwise a good shot, even with a DSLR and Macro, I would probably expect a bit of a messy background with this shot. The second one would of been great had you had a DSLR, the subject plus the three other tall plants would have looked great against a nice green backdrop. The third one would obviously be better, as you would not be able to see that brick wall in the background. And judging by your efforts, no you would not be wasting your time getting a DSLR.

Gruditch
PS I'm no expert.

[Chris]

Gruditch
PS I'm no expert.

He is an expert... you only have to look through the competition entries to see that! I have the same kit as Gary, a 40D with 150mm Sigma and am smitten with it.

When I upgraded from a compact to a 300D dSLR, I used a 70-210 with extension rings and the increase in quality was outstanding. I then bought a dedicated macro lens and again, the increase in quality was outstanding, I then learnt how to use flash and a tripod and the increase in quality was again appreciable. I've now upgraded to a 40D body and again the increase is notable.

I suppose what I'm saying is that you will get better results the more time and money you're prepared to spend. If you have to compromise, compromise on the camera body and not the lens. I'm selling my old 300D body with a load of old kit on eBay and it's likely to go for <£200, so there are bargains to be had.

A shot like this would be impossible without a dSLR, a proper macro lens and flash.

[Tony Moore]

Well, I've stirred up a bit of action, if nothing else! Hi Gruditch and many thanks for your useful comments. I imagine that the DSLR will render the background out of focus so that it doesn't detract from the subject (something I hadn't considered - I'm already learning). How about this one?

Tony Moore.

[Rogerdodge]

I must echo Gruditch's views on your images.
The WLH, in particular, would really stand out if the background was well out of focus.
It would be really helpful if you could post larger images.
My advice would be to resize an image to 900 pixels across, then-
Set up an album at
http://www.photobucket.com, upload the photo and then paste the IMG code that is beneath your photo in the album.
That works for me.
I noticed you are still thinking of the live-view screen.
Forget it. It is a gimmick.
It is great with compacts, but not DSLRs.
If you need to use a really low viewpoint, use an angle finder.

With a DSLR your face becomes a part of the support system.
I have to echo Chris also - Gary IS an expert (and it pains me to to say so - he has a big enough ego as it is!) and, as he says, has never used the live-view on his 40D.
You have been given some great advice on this topic.
HTH
Roger

[Tony Moore]

Hi Roger and thanks again for your comments. As you say, members have been very generous with their advice and I shall certainly heed it.
I have had a lot of trouble resizing images as I'm very much a computer learner. I'll try the photobucket route that you suggest.

KInd regards,

Tony.

[Tony Moore]

.

First attempt at photobucket. If it works, I can't believe how easy it was.

A.M.

[Tony Moore]

GERONIMO!!

[eccles]

Most of the UKB members are diehard Canon enthusiasts who will not consider that other manufacturers might have caught up with and sometimes overtaken Canon on bang per buck .
I am a recent DSLR convert of less than a year from a Canon S3 and was able to take an unbiased view of what I wanted without following the herd. I bought the Sony A100. The A100 was mainly ok but was unfortunately flawed with a sensor that showed poor noise control at iso sensitivities greater than 400. Later models have improved on this but it has to be said that in the noise stakes alone, among entry level DSLRs Canon still rules supreme.

With the A100, the noise problem was partially offset by the in-body image stabilisation, which enabled me to use lower iso settings and get away with slower shutter speeds. In-body stabilisation, or Super Steady Shot (SSS) as Sony calls it, is something which Canon users often make light of, but is IMO a jewel of a feature. It is this that will enable you to hold the A350 away from your eye to use the screen and stand a chance of getting a sharp picture. Every lens I buy is stabilised, contains no gyro, doesn't take seconds to wind up and uses less battery power.

What is not so good with the A350 is that the screen brightness in sunlight may not be sufficient, so be sure to evaluate that in person before splashing out your cash. If you are happy with that then the switch from compact to DSLR with this model is probably the most seamless of all as the whole design and menu system is biased towards using live view. If you don't want to use live view then look at another camera as it does compromise in other areas. In particular, the viewfinder is smaller and less bright than, say, the A200. The A200 is considerably cheaper too - Dixons are currently selling it with 18-70mm kit lens for £265. You still get SSS, spot or 40 segment evaulative metering, in-body AF drive (unlike the cheaper Nikons).

All DSLRs will give better results than even the best compacts, and in the final reckoning which make you decide on will determine where you go in future as once you start buying lenses then you won't want to switch. Buying Sony IS a bit of a compromise in the area of lenses, and Canikon, being the bigger manufacturers will give a greater choice. But I was happy to buy second hand lenses, some of them for an absolute steal and am happy with my choice of manufacturer. Get down to your friendly camera shop and play with a few makes as handling may make up your mind for you.

I now have a Sony A700, which in my opinion is the finest APS-C DSLR on the market. Its sensor has class leading resolution and high iso noise is comparable to others in its class. It has upgraded SSS, weather seals, very fast autofocus even in low light, very bright viewfinder and a huge hi-resolution LCD screen.

In short for beginners:

Sony A200 - A good beginner's model, cheapest current DSLR on the market. Noise at high iso isn't as good as the Canons. Fewer lenses available but if you're buying independents such as Sigma it shouldn't matter much.

Nikon D60 - good camera but no AF motor requires lenses with AF motor built in. No in-body image stabilisation.

Sony A350 - the best live view system on the market but there are better models if you don't want to use live view.

Canon 400D/450D - good cameras with a huge range of lenses and accessories available. No in-body image stabilisation.

Pentax models are also quite good although they can be expensive.

Olympus uses 4:3 format with a smaller sensor. Nice but noisy at high iso and lenses are expensive.