Which 'macro lens' advise

[Marc Heath]

I am sure there are many threads on here for Macro lenses already but here goes anyway. I am currently using a Canon 400d SLR camera with a Sigma 120-400mm APO OS lens, mostly for birding but the results have been very good for butterflies too. I have taken some advise and shoot in manual, I try to use AV and if the light is good F8. I would like to think about getting a macro lens, not major expensive but one that is going to get me good results. I am sure there are many suggestions, please help.

Many thanks in advance

Marc Heath

[Denise]

Hi Marc,

I, and quite a few members here use Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens with a Canon body.
Hope that this helps

Denise

[Rogerdodge]

Firstly, congratulations on being a member of the Canonista.
Your choices for a Macro lens are-
Sigma,
105 - £290
150 - £450
180 - £540
Canon
100 - £330
180 - £950
Tamron
180 - £680
Tokina
100 - £270
Notice that I have not included anything less than 100mm - this is a personal observation, but I have found it hard to get close enough for "frame fillers" with anything shorter than 100mm.
I have the Sigma 180 which is a fabulous lens, and has served me well, and survived some fairly rugged treatment in the 5 or so years I have owned it.
I think, if I were to start again, I would go for the Sigma 150mm, purely for the 2.8 max aperture, and also the weight and size advantages.
The Canon lenses are fabulous, but a little pricey.
I have no experience of the Tamron or Tokina, but I bet they are pretty good - as all specialist lenses like this will be.
Good luck, and I hope you make the right choice.

I have carefully not detailed your "Zoom plus Extension Tubes" options that many are succesful with, as they will, no doubt, be replying pretty soon. They are a good option.

Remain open minded.

Roger

[Denise]

Hi Poobah,

If Marc shops at one stop digital he can get

Sigma,
105 - £229
150 - £350
180 - £479
Canon
100 - £332
180 - £839

Just to point out that it pays to shop around!

Cheers
Denise

[Rogerdodge]

£350 for the 150 is very tempting - I think I have a need for an even bigger camera bag coming on......

[eccles]

I have been pretty successful this year with a 70-210 zoom and a +2 dioptre achromatic close up lens. The latter was made by Canon and should not be confused with cheap single element bottle ends from fleabay. I like it because it has good reach and I can get decent photos of anything down to small blue with it. I also have a Sigma 105 EX Macro which came my way very cheaply last year and is pretty good, but I agree with Roger and Denise that the Sigma 150 is a better choice than the 105 if buying from scratch.

[Marc Heath]

Many thanks so far for the help and prices, I will start to look through these in preparation for buying one for next year. I have attached a Common Blue to show what I have been able to get so far with the lens i use.

cheers

Marc

[Markulous]

I'm on my 2nd Sigma 105mm (have one on my Sigma SD10 - still to get better shots with my current 350D) and use it in preference to Sigma 150mm as the manual focus is so much easier even if it doesn't have a tripod collar for swift switching between landscape/portrait when I'm tripoded. I've also used a Canon 100mm and reckon quality is about on par (but reckon Canon edges it for build)

[bugmadmark]

Hi Marc

I'm in the same boat as you - and to quote Roger - i'm a 'Canonista' too. I've had a EOS 400D for past year and just the one lens, a Canon 28-135 IS USM - but just can't get sharp macro shots on it. Nearly every forum I've read recommends the Sigma 150mm. Also, the wildaboutbritain web site has a lot of photographers recommending the same too - although possibly not putting us Canon fans up on such a high pedestal - perhaps Roger should join their forum and get the balance right? lol . Having done a lot of research, and had loads of realy helpful advice from people on this brilliant site I decided that the Sigma 150 would be for me also. Many here have bought grey imported lenses and got them for perhaps £100 cheaper than high street prices ( i started a post of grey imports). I was about to order mine last month then the microwave blew up, the car broke down, the powershower started leaking and my littel girl dreww all over the bathroom wall with lipstick and I was told I needed to decorate it! Needless to say I'im having to save up again, and with the decline in numbers of bugs to photograph now its probably going to have to wait till next year;-(. I did however manage to pop into warehousexpress and pick up my manfrotto 679B monopod and 232rc head - which were highly recommended by several butterfly photoraphers on this site. It would be nice to hear from other 400D users how they are getting on with the 150 on this body, and also, if they have the same problems that I have using the 28-135 at its macro end.

BW
Mark

[Markulous]

..... and just he one lens , a Canon 28-135 IS USM - but just cant get sharp macro shots on it......... It would be nice to hear from other 400D users how they are getting on with the 150 on this body, and also, if they have the same problems that i have using the 28-135 at its macro end.

Think you'll find the same from anyone using that lens, Mark. Zoom lenses never work very well for macro (or I've never seen great results and I've tried a few) and I gather IS is not very effective at macro distances (but think that's on 1:1 macros)

[Marc Heath]

Most of my photos have been birding ones but i find myself doing more butterflies every now and then, I also find them alot easier to photograph compared to flying birds. As i have mentioned, i use a zoom and the results have been pretty good but it does get a little heavy at times. I have a simple but stupid question. I know using a zoom i can take a photo from 1.5 metres away without disturbing the butterfly. When using a macro, am i on top of the butterfly or shooting from a range that won't scare the butterfly away.

Marc

[Markulous]

When using a macro, am i on top of the butterfly or shooting from a range that won't scare the butterfly away.

Sigma 105mm Minimum Focusing Distance 31.3cm/12.3 in.
Sigma 150mm Minimum Focusing Distance 38.0cm/15.0 in

So, yup, pretty close!
(but the minimum is for 1:1, so to get all butterfly in you can back off these figures. Never measured it but about 2x the above, I guess)

[Gruditch]

No you won't have to be right on top of your subject. The beauty of the longer Macro lenses, like the Sigma 150, is the longer working distance.


To disagree slightly with Mark, I have seen some fantastic butterfly pics, taken with zoom lenses. But usually taken with extension tubes on a top end peace of glass,( that would cost twice as much as a Macro ), rather than with a cheaper consumer lens, that stats it has a Macro facility.

Gruditch

[Marc Heath]

So if i was using a Sigma 150mm macro lens but could only get about 1 metre from the butterfly, would the images be that good. I watched someone this year in East Blean Wood (Kent) trying to get pics of Heath Fritillaries but in getting to close with a macro, the subject just kept flying away, whereas I could stand 1.5 metres away with no problem. Whilst i am happy with my results i do want to get closer to the butterflies, just worried about everything flying away every time.

Marc

[Trev Sawyer]

That largely depends on what species of butterfly you are trying to photograph Mark.
Some are a doddle to get close to, whilst others are frustratingly-easily spooked, especially in the heat of the day.
The experts on this site (and I DON'T include myself amongst them) will tell you to practice on the easier species before trying to get shots of the difficult ones. There is nothing as infuriating as trying to get a shot of a particular specimen which you have yet to photograph, but which persistently takes off between the time your shutter finger starts to move and the camera reacts . Stalking butterflies is something which needs a lot of practice, but you can get very close to even the most skittish of species if you are quick but careful - you may be surprised just how close you can get once you have the technique taped.

Trev

[Chris Pickford]

I think I remember reading (even though I'm a non-Canonista!) that there is a compromise when longer focal length macros are used without a tripod (even more with zooms). The "optical-lever" effect worsens with longer f lenses and increases camera shake, and even with vibration reduction type lenses, this can impose some limits on sharpness. So, you may be furher away from the butterfly, and get a bigger image, but at the expense of sharpness sometimes.....

That was, I belive, the trad reason why most insect photographers tended to use a 100mm lens when photographing "real" insects in the field (ie, not chilled, reared through, or in a studio) as this was the time-tested compromise that gave the best results.

Chris

[eccles]

Chris, to a certain extent you're right but the 150 is a pretty good compromise. To get good framing you'd be around 12-24" away I'd guess. The Canonista members that I know use monopods or tripods. With my zoom lens & close up filter I shoot from around the same distance so the optical lever effect is similar. In camera IS helps but I still try to rest the camera on something if I can, such as my knees when shooting lower down, or try to prop myself against something when higher up. When those options are unavailable, I have to shoot more times to get a decent image.

[Marc Heath]

Pete

You mention a 'close up filter'. Would this benefit me at all and get my images nearer to the subject. Are they any good at all.

Marc

[eccles]

Pete?
Close up filters/lenses are simple means of shortening the closest, and furthest, focussing point of any lens. They screw on the front of the host lens, working best with longer focal length lenses and give good versatility with zooms. When attached you cannot focus to infinity and are restricted to a relatively short range where the subject is in focus. This means that you have to get within range before you can shoot anything at all. However, if you have a high quality telezoom and can find an equally high quality achromatic close up lens of two or three dioptre that will fit (with or without a stepping ring) then it is possible to get good results. It helps if your zoom will focus reasonably close in the first place. Larger butterflies such as silver washed fritillaries can be photographed within the focussing range of many telezooms without any additional attachment.
Using an extension tube, which fits between the camera and the lens like a teleconverter, does pretty much the same thing. Extension tubes will work with all your lenses, irrespective of filter size, and lose very little in quality as there's no glass in them, but there is some light drop-off, and it is less easy to whip on and off like a close up lens. Close up lenses can also be used with compacts if suitable adaptors are available.

[NickB]

Firstly, congratulations on being a member of the Canonista.
(Can't win them all I suppose! N)

I have no experience of the Tamron or Tokina, but I bet they are pretty good - as all specialist lenses like this will be.

Roger

I believe they do make Tamron for Canonista's - tho' I'm happy with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro on my Nikon. (With cropped sensor-size it is effectively a 135mm macro).

A different result to the zoom's with macro, for sure, and better than the 50-150mm Sigma zoom (in my hands, anyway!) and the 18-50mm Sigma Macro of my partner.
N