Sigma 105 handheld vs 150 tripod mounted

[Markulous]

150 down to 24cm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f2 ... acro-sigma

105 down to 12cm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/105mm-f2 ... acro-sigma

[walpolec]

150 down to 24cm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f2 ... acro-sigma

105 down to 12cm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/105mm-f2 ... acro-sigma

Thanks very much indeed!

Chris

[hania]

This is an interesting thread!
By the book we should indeed use a tripod but to tell you the truth, I have not been very successful following that rule. After years of experimenting with all kinds of setups and gear, when shooting butterflies and moths I now stick to Nikon 105mm (non-VR model) on a D300 body. All hand held and definitely withholding breath . On occasions I crank up ISO and/or use a monopod.
Perhaps it's not a matter of what the theories tell you but what YOU find most suitable and comfortable...

[Markulous]

I would love the new Canon 100 but its a bit out of my price range I recon it wont be long before they bring out a 150/180 macro with IS that would be a seriosly useful bit of kit

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/sigma-ap ... -dg-os-hsm

'nuff said!

[Michaeljf]

I have always handheld with Butterfly photographs, and I take my hat off (if I had one) to those of you that use either tripod or monopod. There are times when there are lower light or dull light that I do have more of a problem, but otherwise I find a higher ISO will solve most of my problems (at my level). Having said that (or should that be typed that) I think Roger Gibbons photos are some of the best on the web, and I know he has stated he uses a tripod. This leaves me tempted to try and work with one next year to see if I can improve my results a little.

However, I do love the freedom of not using a tripod when photographing butterflies. Using a tripod for landscape photography sends me round the bend, and at least the landscape sits there, it could send me round the bend even more with a moving object

[Paul Wetton]

Has anyone out there tried using fill in flash. I generally use a Sigma 150 hand held and use fill in flash to keep the ISO down to 400 at the most. The Canon 450D will go to a maximum of of 1/200th in manual mode allowing f stops up F16 dependent on the light. This can be useful in poor lighting although it can flatten out images a little.

I find a tripod slows you down when getting into those tricky positions and adds to the weight to be carried around.

Cheers

Paaul

[Markulous]

I do occasionally use fill-in flash but it does mean taking my EM-140 with me. I take two types of shot: reference, "good", all-in-focus (where fill-in can be useful) and then the more interesting comp where light tends to play a very active part and I use existing light, exactly the same as in landscapes, and where fill-in is not needed

I continue to shoot without a tripod but would be the first to admit that I achieved better reference shots with one but possibly more interesting ones without!

[Rogerdodge]

Markulous said-

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/sigma-ap ... -dg-os-hsm

'nuff said!

Wow the Sigma 150mm Macro with Optical Stabilisation!

Now, I know I had a spare grand lying around somewhere....................

[LCPete]

Hi everyone it has been a while since I started this Sorry its been ages since I contributed
As an update I did end up getting the 100mm Canon IS macro, the autofocus on the Sigma105 started playing up.
I ended up working a lot of overtime last winter and getting the Canon lens
Its a fantastic lens and I dont need to carry the tripod anymore. The IS is so good I can handhold when the light is low for early morning shots and for normal use I never have to go above ISO320
Pete

[FISHiEE]

I have seen that canon 100 IS in action and the IS does really seem to be mighty good. I have photographed with my sigma 150 on a monopod allongside a canon 100IS handheld and the canon blows it away in very low light situations. I swear it can gather more light than the sigma too as the user was getting higher shutter speeds at the same aperture, ISO, exposure compensation as me. Didn't notice what metering he was using though.
The lens hood is a bit of a monster though!

I'd be very tempted if I had the cash.

[NickB]

I see a lot of individual choices being made - once you are familiar and happy with what you have, stick with it !

I have listened to Gary (Gruditch) and John (FISHiEE) bang on about their use of tripods for so long that I have started to lug mine around too!
(Not that I can tell the difference, to be honest, whether I use a mono-pod or a tripod.. ..but I started to use a mono-pod because I don't have IS (either in lens or camera) and hand-holding my Tamron 90mm just didn't do the job....now I use a longer (2nd-hand Nikkor f3.5 200mm) macro most of the time on my D300, I really need my mono-pod, with ball-head to rotate quickly.....speaking of which, Pete, if you use a mono-pod, you could use the ball-head to rotate the camera 90 degrees - you don't need a lens collar to do that ...)
I too don't use high ISOs if I can avoid it; I know that clean backgrounds do look much more noisy when I shoot at ISO400, compared to ISO200....and if I want to print at A3, I wouldn't go above ISO400 - I try to use ISO250 or ISO320; I need to shoot at 1/200th sec as a minimum. I can see the attraction of hand-holding with IS, but I'm not convinced that, for macro work, IS is of any real benefit, image quality-wise, above a conventional set-up with mono-pod/tripod.... Perhaps someone can convince me?
....being a Yorkshireman, I need a lot of convincing for £1000+
Nick

[FISHiEE]

No difference between monopod and tripod in good light... but try getting a sharp shot in low light on a half second exposure on a monopod!

(not the slightest hint of breeze allowed of course or you're stuffed either way

[Zonda]

Of course it depends on the quality you want to achieve, as to what gear you choose. All methods and combinations of lenses, monopods, or just hands have their plus sides and their minus sides. After some experimentation over two seasons, i slowly came to realise that you don't need a macro lens, or a VR lens to photograph butterflies, although i am in favour (as a shakey old wino) of some sort of support. Don't think i want to be habitually spinning my lenses in their supporting rings, i would really rather crop, or use a B & S head. My gear this season, D300s, Nikon 300mm f4, monopod with no head. No RAW.

[Lee Hurrell]

That is a cracking photo Zonda

Kind Regards

Lee

[Zonda]

Thankyou Lee, you are my favourite member on this site. Well,,,, you and Nick (nikon),,, and Felix,,, of course (despite his faults). Pete on a good day too, and Gruds photos are my inspiration. The expertise of Guy, Jack, Neil, and loads more besides, but Lee IMHO you are definitely the nicest guy on here. ,,,, and no, i'm not gay.

[Gruditch]

Gruds photos are my inspiration.

Core thanks Zonda, your now my favourite.

Regards Gruditch

[Lee Hurrell]

Thankyou Lee, you are my favourite member on this site. Well,,,, you and Nick (nikon),,, and Felix,,, of course (despite his faults). Pete on a good day too, and Gruds photos are my inspiration. The expertise of Guy, Jack, Neil, and loads more besides, but Lee IMHO you are definitely the nicest guy on here. ,,,, and no, i'm not gay.

Blimey, not sure what to say...thanks Zonda. Sometimes I just have to tell it as I see it!

All member's photos are my inspiration

Cheers

Lee