Hand held photos

[Superfly]

Hi all,

am currently wrestling with the age old (and discussed to death) topic of which macro lens to purchase. Funds are such that I can just about afford the much praised sigma 150mm, but am considering the canon 100mm and sigma 105mm.

What I would like to ask the many wonderful snappers here is do any of you prefer shooting hand held? I've been chasing butterflies for 2 summers and enjoy the flexibility and freedom of shooting on the move. I am hopefully realistic tho and know there's a good chance I won't be able to get close to achieving the outstanding shots you guys regularly produce with my carefree/careless approach. I believe that the sigma 150mm is used with mono/tripod but that the canon 100mm can give good results without. Have any of you experienced this?

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts/advice you can spare.

The other major issue of course is subject distance but one step at a time huh?

Thanks guys,

Steve

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Superfly (great name!) ... er, Steve!

I personally use a 105mm Sigma lens and have done for the last 5 years. Others would say that the 150mm lens is better because it provides a greater working distance but, if you've worked on your field craft, then I don't find the loss of working distance a disadvantage.

Right - hand held versus tripod! There is no correct answer to which is best - since both have their place - and this includes using the tripod as a monopod (a "halfway house").

But let's set some context - a tripod will always provide the best image when compared with a monopod or handheld. That's just common sense. The problem is that butterflies are not the easiest of creatures to photograph and finding one still for more than a few seconds is a rare event.

My personal experience is that, for species where I don't need record shots, I'll use a tripod - since I want the best image I can get. If I can't get a decent tripod position, then I'll typically use the tripod as a monopod (by extending one leg to provide some stability). But there are also occasions, such as when I go abroad, where I just want to get "a" shot! In this case, I tend to shoot handheld and then, when I've got some half-decent shots, start using the tripod.

I've never used a 150mm lens so can't compare 100mm v 150mm in combination with tripod.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

Hi Steve (yeah good name superfly)

I also have and use a Sigma 105mm. I don't use a tripod for me cause the time it takes me to put the camera on the tripod, the subject has usually gone and I can't get at it.

Its as Pete said:

But let's set some context - a tripod will always provide the best image when compared with a monopod or handheld. That's just common sense. The problem is that butterflies are not the easiest of creatures to photograph and finding one still for more than a few seconds is a rare event

Yes the 150mm has greater distance, but after you learn how to approach the butterflies/moths, you'll see the 105mm is fine.

I have used a monopod before, and used a tripod as a monopod a few times (mainly in a bog area with lots of lumps in grass) and I once had troubles of photographing orange-tips, but I knew where the butterflies stopped to nectar, and I put my tripod up and camera near the plant and behold, I have a decent orange-tip male shot.

If you want good close ups of caterpillar/eggs or whatnot, a tripod is a good idea as you don't want the camera to move slightly when using handheld (I have had that trouble before)

[Gruditch]

I personally find the Sigma 150 Macro, in combination with a semi pro body, to be quite a brick, to hand hold for any long period of time. But the 150 is almost twice the weight of the 105. Plus if you have a entry level, lightweight camera body, you should be able to hand hold quite comfortable.

If you still need more length, you could add a x1.4 converter.


Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I have never used a 100mm range macro lens, but know loads of people that do and handhold for virtually all of their shots and they are mighty sharp. I shoot with a Sigma 150 and have done so for about 4 years now and would only resort to hand holding if I really really had to and then even in good light maybe 1 in 10 I'd say were really good - though I am quite fussy! I shoot 95% of the time from a monopod and 5% from a tripod if I have a subject that REALLY doesn't want to move. I don't personally think that in decent light you gain any image sharpness with using a tripod over a monopod. You do however gain 10000% more flexibility and speed with a monopod over a tripod. I carry both when I am out but the tripod very rarely gets used. Very occasionally I think it would be nice to be able to shoot handheld, but I don't think the monopod is much of a hindrance to my shooting flexibility.

I think the shorter the folcal length, the easier it is to hand hold so a 100mm range lens is quite doable (if you have steady hands of course) but I think not for 150mm and above. The shorter the focal length, the smaller the F number you require for good depth of field so shutter speeds go up etc. a 100mm lens say I might shoot at F5.6 whereas I might need F8 on the sigma for example.

Oh, and the 150 might be a lump as gruddidth says, but I carry it for hours and hours each day in summer and don't find it a problem. I actually find it nicer to carry on a monopod than my canon 100-400 just hand held. I think because there's a nice grip on my monopod and it's weight bakances that of the lens nicely as the total weight is a lot more... especially once I add the 580ex flash on the top!

Of course I use a head on my monopod. I should mention that. It's a manfrotto 234rc on a Manfrotto 679B monopod. I also have a lightweight aluminium Velbon monopod I won in a raffle at a photo comp once that I sometimes take when fishing abroad (and then the fishing gear restricts my luggage allowance) but the manfrotto is a lot heavier and better built and as I do put quite a lot of force on it I do have much more confidence using that. It will last me a lifetime I'm sure. The Velbon I'm sure I'd kill in a year of constant use.

Probably a lot more infor than the original poster was after... I kind of went off on one there lol!

I would add that I am not sure how great 100mm range macro lenses are on a monopod where the camera is mounted on the monopod rather than the lens. My sigma 150 has a tripod collar, so the lens is mounted on the monopod and that's way more stable than a body mounted setup. My sigma 150 was away for repairs for several months a couple of summers back (I dropped the camera and broke it clean in two!) and had to use a sigma 70-300 in it's absence. That setup was terribly unstable on a monopod compared to my 150 and I cursed it every day I used it. Also, for a fully sharp shot I needed about F15 for DOF! It was fine on a tripod though and the minimum focus distance was huuge which was good as then the legs didn't get in the way - another problem with tripod shooting is knocking the plant your subject is on with the legs of the tripod and spooking it!

Also note that other than the canon 100 macro, no other lens in that range has USM or a fixed barrel. Ie they are loud, slow and the lens itself extends when you focus. I always cringe when I see people using lenses like that. That I would think negates a lot of the benefits of being able to handhold shoot... unless you manual focus. I rarely do as my 150 is pretty damn good at focusing I find.

[Roger Gibbons]

On the subject of lenses, I use a Sigma 150mm with a Canon 20D body. I used to use a Sigma 105mm until I “upgraded”. I would say that the main benefit of 150 vs 105 is not only the working distance, but principally that the 150 does not extend as it focuses and is silent, and the 105 used to scare off the subject sometimes, especially when close. I would say that if you’re thinking about which to buy, the 150 is probably better as you may well want to upgrade later.

Regarding hand-held, I am a convert to tripod. I used to think that hand-held was just as good (even though the combination of the 150 and body is around 1.5kg) but I was persuaded a couple of years ago to persevere with a tripod by a Dutch friend and expert photographer, Peter Groenendijk (http://www.anythingbutcommon.nl/), who made the sensible suggestion of comparing my hand-held shots with shots using his tripod. You may not see the difference until you make the comparison.

So I used a cheap tripod, costing around £30, last year and was pleased with the results, even though it was tedious to have to extend the legs and snap six levers into place. But when you get a subject that is roosting or seriously nectaring, a tripod comes into its own. At the start of this year I bought a Manfrotto Neotec tripod, a superb but expensive piece of kit that allows you to just extend the legs and they automatically lock into place. Using this with a ball-joint to allow easy and immediate movement of the camera, to get the required angle fast. With practice, I found I could judge the positioning to get the right shooting angles quite quickly. I also became quite paranoid about the micro-shake of pressing the shutter button and invested a few pounds on a remote shutter release. I found when I got truly still subject, I could scale down on the shutter speed from 1/160 in stages down to 1/10 and get improved depth of field without the shake you would expect from such a long exposure. The Amanda’s Blue on this page (http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/2008 ... s_grid.htm 4th row, far right, click on grid photos to enlarge) was shot using this combination at a shutter speed of 1/25.

I would suggest buying a cheap tripod and sticking with it for a season or so. If you really can’t get on with it, it’s no great loss.

[FISHiEE]

Also being closer to the subject with those shorter lenses means your shadow gets in the way more. I actually notice that more with the 150 than my old 70-300 setup and for guys with a 100mm macro setup this must be a a real pain.

Actually you guys with the shorter lenses do a bloody good job to get the shots you do!

[FISHiEE]

Roger - I notice that Peter's link on his site to yours doesn't work - the fiend!

[Gruditch]

I'm a tripod convert too, once you get used to it, it's not that much of an inconvenience. I get far more keepers, and like Roger says if you find a settled subject, then the tripod really can't be beat.

I still find the 150 a little short, and usually use a x1.4 converter, which gives me 210mm at F/4, and no complaints of a drop of in IQ.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

It's a sod with a moving subject that settles at diferent levels each time, and walking around with a tripod with the legs open at 1m or so is a sod in woodland, bushes, brambles etc!

Also using a tripod in thick vegitation is not fin... sometimes feeding a slngle monopod leg through a mass of brambles isn't fun. 3 legs of a tripod though... aaag!

I recall having to take shots of an extremely static emperor dragonfly on a tripod with the legs splayed out flat resting on top of a mass of bracken as I just could not get the legs through and onto stable ground. The results were great, but I had 15 minutes to faff about as it was cold and rainy and that dragonfly was going nowhere!

[Superfly]

Hey Chaps,

Thanks for all your input. I'm currently using a £40 Sigma 70-300mm on a 400d. It affords me a fair distance and reasonable quality, but only for spotting/identification purposes. I guess ideally I would go for the Sigma 150mm atop a lightweight manfrotto, but a combination of small kids and not being able to drive means I currently can only snatch an hour here and there to go shooting.

I think I will explore the 100mm/105mm options with 1.4x converter but still keeping an open mind.

One more thing, are all the macro lenses mentioned also very good at portraits? Will give me another justification to the Mrs.

Hope next summer brings a better butterfly count and that I will have wheels to travel. Be good to meet up and put faces to the many names and galleries I have admired for nigh on 2 years now.

Steve

[FISHiEE]

I think those in the 100mm range would be better for portraits. The 150 may be a bit long?

Actually I started out with a sigma 70-300 and later bought a 1:1 screw in lens for the front to give me 1:1 macro capability at about 80cm which was superb. Have you tried that lens on a tripod at all? It makes a big difference if that lens is supported. Some of my best shots are still with that lens. It's just harder to get great shots with it - needing F15 and a tripod etc. The 1:1 filter, designed specifically for that sigma, cost me about £30.

Also, re teleconverters, I'm not sure they would fit to the 100mm macro lenses without an extension tube between them? I know that would be the case with the canon TC anyway...

[Gruditch]

On the Sigma UK web site, they do a conversion for each lens ( mm / F stop ) when using converters. But as the 105 gets no conversion stats, I would guess that the x1.4 doesn't work on it.

Gruditch

[eccles]

I'm pretty certain that the front element on the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter is flush, or nearly so, with the lens mount. The Sigma 105 macro's rear element lies flush with the camera mount, therefore the Sigma TC probably wouldn't fit because of insufficent clearance between the two glass surfaces. The Kenko Pro300 1.4x TC is a little cheaper than the Sigma equivalent, and some say it is as good or better than the Sigma. It has plenty of clearance and will fit most lenses. I have used this combination with very good results. It gives a similar working distance to the 150mm macro for the same magnification, or you can go in closer for up to 1.4:1.

[Malcolm Farrow]

There's a popular assumption that for close up photography a tripod/monopod is essential, or at least highly desirable. This simply isn't true, although to get consistently good results hand held, you do need to tip the balance in your favour by exploiting VR technology, higher ISO settings and shorter focal lengths, all to minimise the possibility of shake.

A lot of photographers on this forum favour the Sigma 150, and it's an excellent lens, but it really demands some sort of support. Lenses of around 100mm are easier to hand hold and are more useful for general photography as you've mentioned. By combining these with higher ISOs (and with the latest DSLRs its possible to use ISO 400 or even higher with little or no loss of quality), it's possible to prevent hand shake while still achieving adequate depth of field. VR is the final ingredient that pushes the balance firmly towards making high quality hand held photography both practical and readily achievable with a DSLR.

Unfortunately, you use Canon and, as far as I know, no macro lenses are available with VR for that make. Sony cameras have the technology built into the cameras, although I've no idea how effective it is at close range. However, Nikon make a 105mm macro lens with VR built in and it's truly excellent. While I've nothing but respect for the results achieved by the folk here who use tripods or other supports, if you really favour the hand held approach I would strongly suggest you consider changing to Nikon to exploit this option. It's an expensive way to go, but I can recommend it based on my personal experience. I currently use a D300 and the 105VR and have never used a tripod for insect photography. I hope I can say that the results speak for themselves (that's for you to judge!) and while a longer focal length has some advantages, a more spontaneous approach seems to me the best option for moving, active subjects such as butterflies.

You can see some of my work at: www.malcolmfarrowphotography.com

All the best

Malcolm

[Malcolm Farrow]

By the way, I meant to add that if you're thinking of using a 100mm lens with a converter to achieve a longer working distance, I'd say think again. You'll have a darker finder and poorer auto focusing to contend with. I use auto focusing for my insect work and again find Nikon's implementation of this technology on the D300 to be a fantastic boon when hand holding. But YMMV.

Best wishes

Malcolm

[Superfly]

Hi Malcolm,
have to doff my cap to your hand held results. Changing to Nikon may be a tad too far in my quest for better pics tho!

Wholeheartedly agree that this thread isn't about a right and wrong way to take pics, and those that use supports are producing amazing work. I just think I'm more suited to going without.

Thanks to all for your advise, I'm quite surprised at how many of you are using using the Sigma 105mm, and I've yet to hear from any canon 100mm users - may be there's a reason for this!!??

Anyway, I have till 17/12/08 to decide (I have a 20% discount at a certain auction website )

Adios!

Steve

[FISHiEE]

I think the canon 100mm is possibly the best in that range out there, but people tend to go for the cheaper Sigma/Tamron option. If I were going for a 100mm renge lens the canon would be my choice. I might be tempted to buy and try the Tamron as it is perhaps the sharpest of the sigma/canon/Tamron options from some shots I've seen up to about F8. If I wasn't put off by the other restrictions of working in the 100mm range I'd be temped myself to buy a Tamron just to try it and see. That's perhaps the only lens I've seen shots from that make me think I could gain an IQ advantage over my current sigma 150. They are only a couple of hundred quid (which would be my 2nd cheapest ever lens purchase), and if I don't like I can just stick it on Ebay and get most of that back.

I've not knowingly seen any shots from the Nikon... I will be checking the site shortly. I remember when that lens first came out with built in VR a lot of people said for macro, the VR made very little difference due to the VR not being able to compensate enough at 1:1 magnification. This was some months (maybe years?) back and perhaps thoughts are different now. I have seen samples from a KM (I think that was the predecessor of Sony?) taken with a sigma 105 and it's built in VR. The pics were good, but then pics handheld with a non-VR 105 are good also. Most shooters I know with that range of macro hand hold and get super sharp results. Don't know the % of keepers they get however...

[FISHiEE]

Just cecked Malcolm's site. Very very nice pics, though at that size you couldn't judge how sharp the full image is of course.

In my above posts I have been assuming people would be doing as myself and wanting to print their images (A3+ in my case) so ultimate IQ is essential. For just posting on the web etc. it's less critical and not so sharp pic still looks great small. Also, you loose a lot of the detail from a super image when you reduce it down for the web... even a 1000pix image can loose a lot of that detail you've tried so hard to capture.

You have more options for cropping if you have a great sharp start image though. Can't crop a lot though on a 8mpix image (in my case at present) to print large though.

[Malcolm Farrow]

I'm sure you're not meaning to imply that my pictures aren't sharp Fishiee, but just to make the point: I'd hardly be likely to go to the trouble of buying a D300, expensive Nikon macro lens, flash gun etc., not to mention the hassle of setting up a web site if I didn't take my work pretty seriously! I'm not a pro but my goal is to produce images that are on a par with the best professional standards and that are suitable for publication. Certainly, magazines and conservation charities are happy to use my work, so I'm satisfied that from a technical perspective, my approach delivers all the quality that's needed. Whether they're good from an aesthetic standpoint is quite a different matter!

I'm attaching a couple of images of a chalkhill blue as an example. One shows nearly the full original image (cropped by about 10% to improve the composition), the other shows a close up at 50%. I chose this subject because it required me to get pretty close (blues are small!!) and this, of course, exaggerates any shake due to the magnification effect. Both images have received some sharpening which I believe is always needed - the original RAW output from a Nikon DSLR is a little soft due to the AA filter. Exposure was 1/160 at F11 at ISO 250. The picture was taken late in a session on a breezy day at the Devil's Dyke - 2hrs of scrambling about on the side of a steep, slippery bank. It's exactly the kind of situation where a mobile approach can really pay dividends, but where the chances of camera shake are considerable - difficult stressful positions, close to ground level, challenging, but also great fun. Of course it's perfectly possible to stake out a flower and then wait for the butterfly to arrive, but I prefer the excitement of stalking my subjects. To me, these compressed JPEG outputs look pretty sharp and I hope the images speak for themselves.

However, each to their own, and it's clear that using some sort of support is a VERY successful approach for a lot of insect photographers - I just want to show that it's possible to achieve excellent results hand held too!

Best wishes

Malcolm