Is there a correct lense?

[Gary Hulbert]

Hi Guys
I am new to the butterflies and as you will see also new to photography.
On a recent field trip in Cornwall I was advised that the lense I had was not the right one for the job.
I have a 70-300 mm lense with a 1:2 macro which operates within 200-300mm area fitted to my Cannon DSLR.
I was advised to get a lense which was about 100mm with a 1:1 dedicated macro.
My question is what difference would the 100mm 1:1 macro give me?
I get some good results with the lense I have all-be-it sometimes difficult to get focused possibly because of the higher telephoto element, but I am concerned that if there is a reduced telephoto element that focusing on say a hairstreak in a tree maybe impossible (or am I expecting too much from one lense?). Look forward to your views, thanks Gary :

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gary

This is a frequently asked question and I am no expert but the 1:1 macro will give you a life size image allowing you to get much closer to the subject than your telephoto zoom lens.

There is probably no perfect lens that will suit all occasions but a decent 100mm or slightly larger macro lens is perfect for many types of insects including butterflies. I use a Sigma 150mm macro lens. This allows the user to stay a little further away from the subject than a 100mm lens helping to prevent the user from scaring the subject away.

If you have the money, I took a look at the new Sigma 180mm Macro with image stabilizer at the bird fair. Looks a fantastic lens if a little on the heavy side. It was retailing at the bird fair for around £1200. My 150mm non stabilized Sigma came from EBay second hand for £300. I also have a 400mm F5.6 Canon lens that is used mainly for birds but could probably double up for Hairstreaks in a tree. Best bet is to get them to come to you, then use the macro lens.

I'm sure others with more experience will help but I hope this is of some use.

[Gary Hulbert]

Thanks Paul, good advise and I will have to think long and hard regarding what to do in the future, bearing in mind the pocket. ps. sw Switzerland dvd is great well done.

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gary

Pleased you enjoyed the DVD. Maybe have a look at some new lenses in the shops. Take your camera with a card in it and take a few shots to see what suits you best, then keep your eye out for something similar at a good price second hand. All my lenses are second hand bought from EBay or friends with deeper pockets than me.

[MikeOxon]

am I expecting too much from one lense?

Possibly! It all depends on how many different things you want to do.

If you want really detailed shots of butterflies then a dedicated macro will deliver the goods better than anything else - providing you can get close enough to your subject for the lens to do its thing.

I use a 90mm Tamron macro lens and often add a 1.4X converter to increase the working distance. Converters can be very useful accessories, as they increase the magnification without altering the minimum focussing distance of the lens to which they are attached.

A longer focal length is better for butterflies in trees and I often use one for initial 'grab shots', in case my subject flies when I try to get closer. Single focal length lenses (prime lenses) often give a better result than zooms, not necessarily because they are sharper but because their simpler construction, with fewer glass elements, delivers greater image contrast, which brings out the fine details better.

Mike

[Gary Hulbert]

Thanks Mike for your views. I admit I had not thought of a converter because of any possible degradation that may be introduced by more lenses, but I suppose you would get that anyway with a telephoto lense. Food for thought and may be a cheaper option as well, some great feedback, thanks Mike

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Gary

I tried a converter with our 400mm Canon and as well as needing to tape some of the contacts to aquire auto focus which can cause problems there is definitely a loss of quality. This may be due to a loss of light. Be aware that certain lenses will not allow a converter to be attached purely due to where the lens glass is positioned. Again I would be tempted to try these options out before buying. I agree with mike though, that the additional focal length certainly helps and will prevent the subject being frightened away with the need for being close. However, thats where your stealth and field craft comes into play.

All the best.

[Gruditch]

Hi Gary

Converter compatibility is a bit of a minefield, but I think you will find, as Paul suggests, that if you fit a converter on your 70-300 you will loose Auto focus.

As Mike says, If you want really detailed shots of butterflies then a dedicated macro will deliver the goods better than anything else.

The Sigma 105, and the non image stabilised Canon 100, and the Tamron 90 can all be picked up relatively cheap.

Regards Gruditch

[MikeOxon]

Perhaps I should clarify my views on converters.

I think that they should only really be considered for use on wide-aperture, fixed focal-length lenses. Zooms are already very complex and quality does suffer if yet more glass elements are added. A 1.4X converter should only be used on a lens of f/4 or larger aperture and a 2X on f/2.8. A good 1.4X converter used in this way should have very little effect on image quality but a 2X converter is usually regarded as an 'emergency' lens and, almost certainly, will cause noticeable loss of quality..

Limit your choice to the camera manufacturer's own converter or, in my experience, the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X works well. I use my converter successfully on Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and Nikon 300mm f/4 lenses.

Many (most?) birders use converters on long wide-aperture tele lenses.

Mike

[Gary Hulbert]

Thanks Everyone, for your views and experiences. The converters issue I think is an interesting one but is not one that I would consider for my existing 70-300mm lense because of the loss in quality. The concensus of opinion seems to be around the 100mm focal length prime macro lense. I definitely need to try before I buy as suggested. Thanks again for all your views - Gary

[Steve Babbs]

I'm coming to this a bit late but these are my thoughts.

Is the lens you have a Sigma and if so is the apochromatic one? If so IMO it's actually a very impressive lens for the price and I used one for years, getting a picture taken with it published twice, once as a front cover. I have to admit I don't use it now though. I have a Tamron 90mm. This is very impressive optically but, as you say, it can be very hard to get close enough to the butterfly. I regret buying it and wished I'd splashed out more on a Sigma 150 or 180. I'd love the new IS 180, but rather expensive. So when I can't use the Tamron I use my Canon 100 - 400L, sometimes with an extension tube. This is another rather expensive lens but I use it for birds and mammals as well as insects.

My advice to you would be don't rush to get rid of what you've got, but when you do I'd go a bit bigger than a 90mm or 100mm. Mind you people who are better at stalking, or have more patience, than me might disagree!

I hope this helps

Cheers

[a_j_steele]

Having used both styles 55-250 and 100 macro cannon i feel it almost can depend on the butterfly because some types with let you get near e.g large skipper, hairstreaks when on ground and other you really do need a long lenses i find like filtaries. just my take on it

[Gary Hulbert]

Thanks to Steve and AJ for your thoughts. Yes Steve my lense is a SIGMA but no its not an APO unfortunately. As I am very new to butterflies and their photography I'm going to get more experience before I possibly invest in another lense, I think. I am going to however, take Paul Wetton's advise and try a few in the shops as the intrigue is killing me!!

[Rogerdodge]

Gary
If I was in your position, I would have no hesitation in buying a second hand (E-Bay?) Sigma 150mm Macro - non OS.
These seem pretty good VFM these days with many people upgrading to the OS version.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-EX-150m ... 3f1ba258af
is a good example.
It is a very robust lens, and if it turns out to be faulty or damaged in some way you have the choice of sending it back (I have done this with no problem) or using the EXCELLENT Sigma Service Centre.
I have used it a couple of times, and the lenses came back "as new", and it wasn't overly dear.
If the lens turns out to be a mistake for you, then just stick it back on EBay (or offer it for sale on this site).
The lens you have (I have one gathering dust in the back of a cupboard somewhere) is not renowned for sharpness, and you will be amazed at the difference in image quality.
Please - try to use a tripod or, at least, a monopod.
Stay away from convertors (I have a Sigma/Canon 1.4x for sale if you really want one!) as IQ suffers.
Macro photography is very difficult. It is not just a matter of putting a lens on a camera and banging off some shots. I can assure you that you will be very disapointed for some time, wondering why you can't get the results you see from some of the photographers on this site. However - you must persevere, and after a season or so, and some disciplined tripod/monopod use, you will see results.
Good luck. You are entering a very absorbing and addictive hobby.

[Gary Hulbert]

Hi Roger, Thank you for your enthusiastic reply which gets straight to the point and is full of good advice. I have already started with a tripod which will take some getting used to in order that I do not miss too many shot opportunities. However the end results have been far better as you would expect. Yes I know what you mean regarding the hobby being addictive, my wife already says that I'm fanatical - oh well!

[NickB]

...... Yes I know what you mean regarding the hobby being addictive, my wife already says that I'm fanatical - oh well!

You still have a wife....?