Looks pretty good to me Malcolm. Hope my comments weren't taqken the wrong way. I wasn't saying the images in your site weren't sharp. Just that a shot that size that looks sharp doesn't prove the original is that's all
The one thing you can't fix with with a tripod, monopod or whatever is the weather - ie the wind. You can have the camera as stable as you like, but a bit of breeze and you're buggered. Then it comes down to finding the sheltered spots or waiting for a drop in the wind!
I like Malcolm have slipped and slithered up and down the Devils Dyke on a windy August day for Chalkhills (with my D300 & Tamron 90mm) so I know what he means
(And I used a Panasonic with in-camera VR previously and hand-holding down to 1/25th was good and 1/50th or so v good so I can appreciate that VR works)
I manage to use a monopod with rotating head and it is still possible to go walkaround like Malcolm & easier to get a stable platform as I have no VR. A quick-release to get low-down handheld if needed - but with practice the monopod can be braced to provide stability at a variety of angles for shooting.
No VR technology so far but - am considering a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto (or the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6) for birding and possibly aboreal butterflies like PE and WA. (Anyone any experience of these yet? Would like something down to f2.8 or a big prime, but can't afford that! D300 High-ISO performance is so good that you can compensate for lack of light to some degree ...)
Still can't control the wind tho' as Fishiee points out. Last summer was one of the windiest for 20 years and I'm sure we all suffered on the rare day the sun shone!
N
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
On the teleconverter topic, I don't think a camera with a decent viewfinder should have much trouble with AF at F4 effective aperture. I certainly don't. However, my Sony's image stabilisation does take a bit of a hit when I use my Pro300 1.4x TC. It still works but it's less effective than with a straight lens. I think this is because the TC doesn't correct the effective focal length information passed from the lens to the camera. I would switch to the equivalent Sony TC like a shot because it is a superb bit of glass. Unfortunately the front element, like that on the Sigma TC, is nearly flush with the mount which prevents it from being used with the 105 macro, and many other lenses as well. The solution is to use a monopod or high shutter speed or a combination of both. And of course, even the best image stabilisation system doesn't do a thing when the subject is swaying about because of wind. Here, even if you hit focus as the butterfly is swaying about on that blade of grass, you're still going to have to use a high shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
As for the reason why so many use Sigma macro lenses as opposed to OEM equvalents, it is primarily one of price. Just about every prime genuine macro lens, whether Sigma, Tamron, Canon, Sony, Nikon or whatever, will outresolve your average DSLR sensor, so it's academic which one is used when IQ alone is considered. I would suggest that an OEM lens is likely to be of better build quality, however.
I think the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM replaced the old 170-500mm. Lisa used to have a 170-500mm and it wasn't up to much, felt nasty and the IQ was not great, you get what you pay for I suppose. Don't know much about the 120-400mm but as it's not a EX lens, I personally wouldn't touch it. At under £900 the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF NIKKOR looks good.
Thanks - the 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR NIKKOR does look good
And at £250 more than the Sigma 150-500mm it should be!
I guess I should bite the bullet and start saving - like you say - good glass is an investment and for the Nikon, Nikkor lenses are the DBs!
N
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
The comments about subject movement are completely on the money - I find it at least as much of a problem as hand shake. This is particularly true on breezy days and when butterflies are actively feeding and, unless the flash is contributing the bulk of the exposure (which usually looks very unnatural) a much higher shutter speed is the only solution - certainly a stable support won't help.
One of the advantages of the latest generation DSLRs is the improved performance at high ISOs, making it possible to use much faster shutter speeds and still get good quality. The 'full frame' cameras are best in this regard, but you don't get the magnification advantage of the crop factor, so a bigger, heavier lens will be needed to retain the same apparent focal length. I think that tilts the balance firmly in favour of the AP-C format cameras. I find I can use my D300 at ISO400 and get what are effectively noiseless images. At ISO 800, performance is still pretty acceptable, though I rarely use it. However, I find the new D700 to be even better and the performance at ISO1600 is frankly amazing, but I didn't really buy it with close-up work in mind although it has made me think - e.g might be good shooting in woodland. It certainly shows that there are many more considerations than merely the pixel count - though that's a subject for another thread!
One of the advantages of the longer lenses that is rarely mentioned is their ability to provide better out of focus areas, allowing the subject to really stand out from the background. I rarely find the shorter lenses a problem from the point of view of approaching butterflies, although I'd like a longer lens when shooting dragonflies.
Finally, going back to Steve's original question, I'd sum up by saying, decide what shooting style suits you best, then invest in the gear which will put the odds most in your favour. If hand holding is your preferred method, a shorter lens, VR or a body with good high ISO performance might be the most important considerations. If you need auto focus, a camera with lots of focusing points and a lens that focuses quickly and accurately will be high on your list of priorities. In the end, there's no right or wrong answer; it's just about choosing the right tools for the job.
Agreed. The longer lenses do give a much better OOF background
Nick - That Nikon 200-400 is more like £2500 more than the sigma and by all accounts it's worth that. Shame it won't fit my canon!!
I've used a Nikon D80 with a Nikon 80-400. Nice lens. Similar to the canon 100-400 from what little use I had of it. One thing though, despite my initial fears of the canon push-pull zoom I actually like that a lot more than the conventional twist zoom on the Nikon. It's a lot quicker going from one extreme to the other... I also used a Nikon 18-200on the same body. Great flexibility in that lens and I loved it for that. I don't think it gets that great reports, but the images looked mighty fine to me... Colours from that Nikon were great, though the noise was quite noticeably higher than my 30d. I think that was before Nikon got on top of camera noise and later models are better I think.
I've also heard poor reports of that Sigma 170-500 though the 50-500 gets pretty good comments. Did I hear they made a VR version of that? Or was it just the 150-500 they brought out?
NickB wrote:I manage to use a monopod with rotating head and it is still possible to go walkaround
Which model do you use, Nick?
Thanks
Malc
A Manfrotto 679B monopod plus 484RC2 quick release rotating ball-head. That means you can brace the foot and swivel the head and lock at any angle to get down lower or adjust to the bank on the Devils Dyke for instance. It does mean it feels like carrying a dumb-bell around, so have to switch hands and make sure I lock the quick release! At least Nikons bounce better than Canons!
It is about 2ft long when collapsed but 2m high when extended. (And that's only the monopod, girls!)
Must agree with the comments about D300 High-ISO performance
N
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
FISHiEE wrote:Agreed. The longer lenses do give a much better OOF background
Nick - That Nikon 200-400 is more like £2500 more than the sigma and by all accounts it's worth that. Shame it won't fit my canon!!...
I've also heard poor reports of that Sigma 170-500 though the 50-500 gets pretty good comments. Did I hear they made a VR version of that? Or was it just the 150-500 they brought out?
Have seen some good reviews for the new "Cheap at £625" Sigma 150-500mm OS zoom, replacing the 170-500mm. (also the new VR Sigma 120-400mm for £485). I have seen a 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR NIKKOR for about £875. The primes are £2500+ and out of my league
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
Just looked at that 484RC2 head. I think my 234 RC is nicer to carry. The current version doesn't seem to have it, but mine has a hole in the middle just the right size for my thumb. Carrying it at that point the monopod perfectly balances the camera and lens and can walk for hours like that without weight really being an issue.
Good point about making sure the quick release plate is fitted securely (and locked!). I dropped my 10D and sigma 150 off mine when the head wasn't correctly seated. Camera hit the ground and the weight of the lens ripped it clean off the front of the camera. Camera was fine but the lens ended up broken clean down the middle. They managed to fix it... after 3 month wait for parts!
The perceived advantage of APS-C over full frame isn't an advantage at all provided the pixel density is similar. The new Canon (21MP) and Sony (24MP) FF models have pixel densities that are similar to APS-C so can resolve similar amounts of detail. The main difference is that they include the edges of the image that APS-C cameras throw away, but you don't have to use these extra bits.
No the pixel densities are much lower than say the canon 50D... their pixel count is of benefit if you can still fill the frame with the subject, but then you loose depth of field, need more light to gain it back etc. but then you have less noise at higher ISO's...
I think in an ideal world where conditions are perfect, you can shoot on a tripod always etc. the full frame is the winner however in realitity probably APS-C is the best option for macro... or the canon 1.3x crop on their 1D series being the perfect halfway house... so long as the next one has about 15-16MP for A3 printing
I'm waiting for the new 5DII to be in shops to try that and the 50D side by side, but from samples I have seen I think the 50D is probably gonna be the one for me of those two for macro.... but the new 1D will be around in Feb quite possibly... fixed battery grip is a disadvantage for macro though when you want to get low...
Link to a Manfrotto product page - some nice shoulder braces and other bits for even more stable platform for monopods....
MN361 Shoulder brace
MN331 Monopod Support bracket
look interesting for monpod users...
Last edited by NickB on Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home..."
Shooting macros (I'm talking true macros here, 1:1 at least) without a tripod is a little like shooting landscapes without a tripod; you can get good results in either genres but you'll get better results with a tripod - sadly, VR/IS/OS effectiveness at macro magnifications is virtually non-existent.
Personally, I'll handhold if possible and, depending on the subject, will progress to mono or tripod having achieved a "banker" shot (which may or may not be acceptably reasonable) - I've used the 100mm Canon and currently use the 105mm and 150mm Sigmas and have to say I prefer the 105mm for the faster/easier MF and the 150mm for the tripod collar for rapid landscape/portrait switch. Whilst the Canon is slightly better built, the IQ is no better and it really irritates me that it doesn't come with a lens hood (which I use all the time - and has saved the front element on a couple of occasions)
Markulous wrote:Shooting macros (I'm talking true macros here, 1:1 at least) without a tripod is a little like shooting landscapes without a tripod
I couldn't agree more. I've been assuming that Steve wants a lens for butterfly photography and will normally want to photograph the whole insect with a bit of 'context' around it, i.e. close up as opposed to true macro. At magnifications lower than 1:2, I find the Nikon VR system begins to have some useful benefit and from 1:3 and out, is generally very beneficial when handholding. At very close range (1:1 to 1:2) it's probably better to turn it off, but then you need to remember to turn it back on again when you need it (!), so I normally leave it on all the time.
Don't know much about the 120-400mm but as it's not a EX lens, I personally wouldn't touch it. At under £900 the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF NIKKOR looks good. 
