Canon lens advice please

[_astralis]

With 400mm on my canon XL2 video camera I get up to around 60x magnification

Damn! Ive gotta get me one of those video cameras. They look awesome! 60x magnification sounds like it would be good for filming the Purple Emperor and Purple Hairstreak

I would gladly sacrifice 100mm and have the Canon 100-400.

Ive tried this one out and it really is a good lens. I decided to get the 300mm L instead because i thought the push and pull zoom might drag dust inside the lens body. Not sure if this is an issue or not.

The 24-105 is great lens, I just wish it didn't extend when you zoom, and I wish I could remember to turn off IS when doing long exposures.

Im glad im not the only one who forgets to switch off IS when using a tripod. You get so used to using it with IS on that you forget its actually there! Will have a look at the Sigma 17-50mm, though i was hoping to replace my 10-22mm with something as wide as 12mm at least.

The plastic body, awkward focusing, rotating front end, non-linear zoom, etc. are all irritants (which the review does indeed agree with), but they shouldn't affect the image quality per se.

The quality of the 18-55mm glass is the lowest Canon do, i reckon. That, along with the other factors, is why its a kit lens. I dont claim to know much about what makes a lens work but there are a number of factors that affect image quality. For a cheap lens, you're just not going to get high quality. Thats why ive stuck mainly with L lenses. Save up for the best you can get and you'll save money in the long run. I know someone who has bought lenses, not been happy with them and had to buy new ones. He wasted a lot of money doing it that way.

At some point I'd like a decent general-purpose lens which would handle them reasonably, and I was hoping that the 18-55 IS would do the job, but apparently not. At the top of my current shopping list is a butterfly-friendly macro lens, which I'd like to buy soon enough to be able to practise with before the season starts.

It depends on your budget. But for general purpose, i recommend the 24-105mm L (if you're not bothered about the wide angle) or the 17-40mm L which is cheaper than the 17-55mm and can be used on any camera body. Gruditch vouches for it I saved a lot of money buying from kerso. It would be worth getting a price list from him. Also check out Sigma, Tamron and other makes. But in my opinion, Canon are at the top of their game. For butterflies, the 100mm L IS macro is top notch. The non L 100mm is also quite good ive heard and is cheaper but lacks the IS which really helps in low light. I photograph a lot of butterflies at roost (as they are nice and cooperative!) and i would be lost without the IS. I also have the 60mm which is great but lacks the IS. As Gruditch says, i dont think theres such a thing as a bad macro lens. But IS, for me, is a must on these lenses.

I've been advised to always shoot RAW, so I may end up using the RAW + L setting in case the camera can get things right without any help.

Anything shot in RAW, despite the L setting, will look a little soft. You need to sharpen a bit in post processing when you convert the RAW file to TIFF or JPEG. I used to swear by JPEG and hated RAW but ive come around now I still shoot in both though. Old habits die hard!

[Gruditch]

I must admit I hardly ever use RAW, and when I do I always then shoot RAW + L and invariable end up just using the Jpeg anyway.

I think the Bigma just has too much zoom from 50 to 500. This will always affect the clarity of the pictures especially at the 500mm end of the focal range.

Ironically the 50-500 was the best of the bunch, it was the only one to use the Sigma EX glass.

i thought the push and pull zoom might drag dust inside the lens body. Not sure if this is an issue or not.

It can, but it does not effect the lens or the image.

For butterflies, the 100mm L IS macro is top notch. The non L 100mm is also quite good ive heard and is cheaper but lacks the IS which really helps in low light. I photograph a lot of butterflies at roost (as they are nice and cooperative!) and i would be lost without the IS.

With butterfly work I do like a longer working distance, so the Canon 100 IS was never seriously on my shopping list. But if they stick IS on the 180mm then I'll have to start saving again.

Regards Gruditch

[Hugh Middleton]

Thanks all. This is developing into a very interesting and informative thread. It is good to hear what others are using and a debate about the pros and cons of various lenses.

I for one am learning much from the various contributers - so thanks again.


Hugh

[_astralis]

With butterfly work I do like a longer working distance, so the Canon 100 IS was never seriously on my shopping list. But if they stick IS on the 180mm then I'll have to start saving again.

Do you use the Sigma 150mm for macro work? The Canon 180mm L is expensive enough but can you imagine the price if it had IS? Its quite a heavy lens too. I dont think my wrist could take it!

Thanks all. This is developing into a very interesting and informative thread. It is good to hear what others are using and a debate about the pros and cons of various lenses.

Glad to help, Hugh What lens you decide to get will be largely dependent upon your needs and budget. The problem is there are so many different lenses to choose from!

Gill

[Rogerdodge]

Hi
I must leap to the defence of the Bigma. I used to have one, and sold it to be replaced with the Canon 100-400, primarily for the IS.
I loved the Bigma, and missed that little extra grab from 400 to 500mm
The images were always really sharp (assuming good support of course) with superb contrast
Now that the Bigma comes with OS it must be a fabulous bit of kit - even if a bit "ugly" looking at full zoom.

I really like the "dust pump", and it doesn't push dust into the camera body. Mine survived two weeks in the dustiest conditions you can imagine - bouncing around in the back of an open jeep chasing around central India after tigers. At the end of each day all my kit was brown from dust, and this in spite of being inside pillowcases and inside zipped up Think Tank bags!! There wasn't a speck inside the lens, and a just tiny speck on the sensor which probably came from lens changing.

You must not mistake the Bigma for the seriously inferior 150 - 500 from Sigma which is a bit poo.

I agree with Gary that Canon 100 (with or without IS) is a fantastic lens, but a bit short for butterflies and other wary bugs.
I used to have one, and sold it to get the Sigma 180mm which is now discontinued. I absolutely adore this lens.
I hear rumours that it is due to be replaced by a 200mm macro with OS (or IS if you prefer). This will cause my bank balance some serious damage if it is true!!

The problem with being a "generalist" in wildlife photography is that no single lens can do it all. Also, if you have ambitions of selling your work, or even having prints over A3, you need a DSLR and some good quality lenses. I think it is true that lenses that try to do too many things don't do all of them well.

If, however you just want to view your images on a computer, or make prints up to A4 or an occasional A3, then a good bridge camera may well be the answer. See the remarkable results that SussexKipper, Jack Harrison and Paul Kipling get from the Lumix FZ38 - excellent stuff.

So, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but they all need a sharp knife and a strong stomach.

[Gruditch]

Do you use the Sigma 150mm for macro work?

I did but it didn't survive when it fell over with the tripod, I felt it a bit boring to get a straight replacement so I got the equally good Tamron 180.

Now that the Bigma comes with OS it must be a fabulous bit of kit

Your getting the old 170-500 mixed up with the new 150-500 os Roger

One thing missing on the new Bigma though Roger, EX glass. Unlike the 170-500 the old Bigma was a good lens, It just reminded me too much of the 170-500, and that was enough to make me dislike it.

Regards Gruditch

[Paul Wetton]

I've read that the new sigma 150-500 is pretty good and certainly much better than the old 170-500.
I've also read good reports for the Bigma but not sure if this was an old or new version.
I know there are two versions as the rubber grips are different on them but not sure on the specs.

I wasn't slating the bigma in any way merely giving a possible reason for someone way back mentioning it was not necessarily the best for sharpness. Normally more zoom = less sharp but maybe not in this case.

I would like to know opinions on which is the sharpest the new bigma (if it has changed) or the 150 - 500mm from sigma if anyone has used both.

[_astralis]

I agree with Gary that Canon 100 (with or without IS) is a fantastic lens, but a bit short for butterflies and other wary bugs.

Ive not really had a problem getting close to most species of butterfly with my 100mm. I did a lot of photography with my little compact in 2008 and 2009 where i had to get within a few centimetres of a butterfly and i still managed to be mostly successful. I think a lot depends on how you approach them. Granted, photography with the 100mm can be challenging on occasion but thats all part of the fun of it in my book. Photography would be boring if it were too easy

Is the Sigma 180mm quite heavy? Do you use a monopod or tripod with it when photographing butterflies?

Gill

[Bill S]

As people have been discussing general purpose lenses I thought I chime in with a vote for the Canon 15-85 f3.5-f5.6, one of the kit lens options on the 7D. I got rid of my 10-22 which I'd not used very much and the kit lens (17-85) from my 40D to upgrade to this as a general purpose lens. The 15-85 is wide enough for me for 99% of my needs, and has a nicer IS than my old 17-85. Only drawback is that it is EF-S so will only fit crop sensor, but for me that isn't a disadvantage.

Cheers

Bill

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gill

60x magnification is great but not easy to hold still. You need a good old big tripod. My gear weighs in at around 15 to 20 kg in all and I'm gonna be lugging it up some Swiss mountains this year.

Good for building the muscles up though.

[Gruditch]

As people have been discussing general purpose lenses I thought I chime in with a vote for the Canon 15-85 f3.5-f5.6, one of the kit lens options on the 7D. I got rid of my 10-22 which I'd not used very much and the kit lens (17-85) from my 40D to upgrade to this as a general purpose lens. The 15-85 is wide enough for me for 99% of my needs, and has a nicer IS than my old 17-85. Only drawback is that it is EF-S so will only fit crop sensor, but for me that isn't a disadvantage.

A few years back every photography forum there was, had the general consensus that 1.6x cropped sensor would go, and everything would one day be full frame. But with the amount of effort Canon are putting into the EF-S range that obviously isn't going to happen.

So if your going to plug a EF-S lens, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, is the one to go after, I used to lust after this lens. F2.8 so its much faster than the 15-85 which is f3.5-5.6, and it is said to have Canon L glass.

Regards Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Gill Asked-
[quote]Is the Sigma 180mm quite heavy? Do you use a monopod or tripod with it when photographing butterflies?/quote]
Yes, it is quite heavy.
I use a tripod usually, a monopod ocasionally, and hand hold rarely.
For a tripod I like the carbon fibre Manfrotto ones that can splay the legs flat and the centre column can be set horizontally.
For a lot of butterfly photographs, especially in grassland, lying prone with the lens on a rolled up jacket is excellent also.

[_astralis]

60x magnification is great but not easy to hold still. You need a good old big tripod. My gear weighs in at around 15 to 20 kg in all and I'm gonna be lugging it up some Swiss mountains this year. Good for building the muscles up though.

I can imagine! Not sure how much my camera, lenses, accessories and Manfrotto tripod weigh but im sure its not that much. Are you going to the Swiss mountains for butterflies? Very jealous

So if your going to plug a EF-S lens, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, is the one to go after.

Agreed!

I use a tripod usually, a monopod ocasionally, and hand hold rarely. For a tripod I like the carbon fibre Manfrotto ones that can splay the legs flat and the centre column can be set horizontally.

You have my respect. I can never be bothered with faffing around with a tripod to photograph butterflies. Unless they are roosting so you have the time to set it all up. I have the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 which is excellent.

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gill

Yep I'll be after butterflies mainly but all the other wildlife of the Swiss Alps will be captured on film if willing to pose for me. Get the plugs in early for my next film to go on sale.

I use the Sigma 150mm Macro lens which is similar to the Sigma 180mm and slightly sharper according to users of both who I've spoken to (both are good lenses though) but probably slightly lighter. I use the 150mm without a tripod or monopod as does my better half Helen, who by the way took the Chequered Skipper photo that came top on the British Butterflies section of this years annual comp, using the afore mentioned lens hand held with fill in flash.

I'll be taking my large Manfrotto tripod for the XL2 to switzerland but will also have a monopod for the 120-400mm on the still camera and possibly I'll take my Gorillapod for low down work on butterflies and flowers for the still camera as I've not really tried it out yet and don't want to take two tripods.

I think I may also take a small donkey to carry all this gear up and down the mountains. Sorry forgot that's why I'm taking Helen.

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gruditch

Ironically the 50-500 was the best of the bunch, it was the only one to use the Sigma EX glass.

Was this the older non OS version or the newer model. I noticed a rather worn example of the non OS lens on EBay going for around £250 if anyone was interested.

[Gruditch]

Hi Paul,

Sigma made the very disappointing 170-500, it always got bad reviews, and they eventually ditched it, and replaced it with the much better 150-500 OS.

The 50-500 Bigma, whether I'm a fan of it ore not, is a classic lens that has been around for ages. Very old models can have, unless they have been rechipped, problems working on DSLRs. If a used Sigma lens doesn't have DG on it, or state that it has been returned to Sigma for rechipping, then avoid.

The Bigma always used to be a Sigma EX lens, this meant it got the best glass, and quality of build. The newest model 50-500 OS, which has Sigma's Optical stabilisation, isn't an EX, lens. But judging by the reviews I've read, optically its as good as ever, and the build quality is as good as before. So I can only imagine that the standard of a Sigma EX lens has gone up, and the new Bigma OS, doesn't make the grade.

Regards Gruditch

[Paul Wetton]

Thanks Gruditch

Appreciated.

[Glostopcat]

I have the Sigma 70-300mm DG Macro lens and use it for photographing both insects and birds, it is particularly good for photographing species that don't settle for long and let you get too close, like some dragonflies and species of butterfly like the Wall Brown. I've also had good results photographing butterflies with the Canon Powershot A400

[_astralis]

I think I may also take a small donkey to carry all this gear up and down the mountains. Sorry forgot that's why I'm taking Helen.

Poor Helen! Good luck on your trip though. Im sure you'll get some amazing stuff on camera That Chequered Skipper photo is amazing, btw. Im hoping to go to Scotland in 2012 to see them.

Has anyone heard about the new Canon 200-400mm f/4 L IS (with built in 1.4x converter) thats on the cards? Im practically drooling! The converter will boost the focal length to 280-560mm! Though i doubt ill be drooling at the price. I am also eagerly anticipating the new Canon 15-60mm f/2.8 IS lens that is said to be replacing the 17-55mm.

Gill

[Rogerdodge]

Prepare to drool..................
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/revi ... eview.aspx