some spring butterflies from southern France
-
Roger Gibbons
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:29 pm
- Location: Hatfield, Herts
- Contact:
Roger,
I have been on your website and I find your photographs really amazing and superb!! Can I ask you which lens you use (I guess a macro lens!!)? I have a 300mm telephoto lens which is brilliant for big butterflies but not so good for smaller butterflies (like the blues). I really like the way the subject is detached from the background in your pictures. I am looking to buy a new lens (macro) but don't know where to start so any of your advice would be most welcome!!
Thank you
Sylvie
I have been on your website and I find your photographs really amazing and superb!! Can I ask you which lens you use (I guess a macro lens!!)? I have a 300mm telephoto lens which is brilliant for big butterflies but not so good for smaller butterflies (like the blues). I really like the way the subject is detached from the background in your pictures. I am looking to buy a new lens (macro) but don't know where to start so any of your advice would be most welcome!!
Thank you
Sylvie
-
Roger Gibbons
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:29 pm
- Location: Hatfield, Herts
- Contact:
Hi Sylvie,
I use a Canon D20 with a Sigma 150mm lens. I know little about the mechanics of photography (so I’ll avoid making comments that make this obvious!), but there are plenty of photography experts who contribute to the forums.
I had a Sigma 105mm lens which I used with a Canon 500 film camera up to the start of 2006. The resultant developed photos were OK but so much resolution was lost scanning the negatives for web display that I decided to go digital and took the view that I might as well go for something top(-ish) of the range given that I spend so much time in the field. I used the 105mm lens in 2006 and got the 150mm lens at the start of this year, mainly on the recommendation of experts on these forums. The 150mm does not extend as it focuses and has a silent motor so doesn’t scare the subject as the 105mmm lens sometimes did. Also you get more working distance with the 150mm. The 105mm and the 150mm will (or can) produce the same photo, but the 150mm is easier to use although about 500g heavier and about £200 more expensive.
I would suggest having a trawl back through the Photography Forum as these topics have been discussed in some depth in the past.
I think almost any macro lens will blur the background automatically, so there’s no technique involved, but no doubt others are better qualified to advise here.
I feel that the kit is only a small part of the equation, and that the position of the sun and the shot angle (i.e. close to 90 degrees for wings-closed shots, as you so little depth of field), are far more important.
There seems to be a lot of debate about tripods on the site. I was strongly anti-tripod for many of the reasons expounded on the site, but this year I was persuaded by a Dutch friend to persevere with the cheap (£30) tripod I already had and to compare tripod and non-tripod shots. He said there would be times when I wanted to throw the tripod in the nearest lake, and he was right - I lost a great shot of a lesser purple emperor as the tripod clunked open. But he was also right about the difference and now I use it wherever I can. I’m planning to invest in a Manfrotto Neotec tripod which has quick release legs and rapid positioning using a ball head as I’m sure I’m going to get good usage from it in 2008.
Roger
I use a Canon D20 with a Sigma 150mm lens. I know little about the mechanics of photography (so I’ll avoid making comments that make this obvious!), but there are plenty of photography experts who contribute to the forums.
I had a Sigma 105mm lens which I used with a Canon 500 film camera up to the start of 2006. The resultant developed photos were OK but so much resolution was lost scanning the negatives for web display that I decided to go digital and took the view that I might as well go for something top(-ish) of the range given that I spend so much time in the field. I used the 105mm lens in 2006 and got the 150mm lens at the start of this year, mainly on the recommendation of experts on these forums. The 150mm does not extend as it focuses and has a silent motor so doesn’t scare the subject as the 105mmm lens sometimes did. Also you get more working distance with the 150mm. The 105mm and the 150mm will (or can) produce the same photo, but the 150mm is easier to use although about 500g heavier and about £200 more expensive.
I would suggest having a trawl back through the Photography Forum as these topics have been discussed in some depth in the past.
I think almost any macro lens will blur the background automatically, so there’s no technique involved, but no doubt others are better qualified to advise here.
I feel that the kit is only a small part of the equation, and that the position of the sun and the shot angle (i.e. close to 90 degrees for wings-closed shots, as you so little depth of field), are far more important.
There seems to be a lot of debate about tripods on the site. I was strongly anti-tripod for many of the reasons expounded on the site, but this year I was persuaded by a Dutch friend to persevere with the cheap (£30) tripod I already had and to compare tripod and non-tripod shots. He said there would be times when I wanted to throw the tripod in the nearest lake, and he was right - I lost a great shot of a lesser purple emperor as the tripod clunked open. But he was also right about the difference and now I use it wherever I can. I’m planning to invest in a Manfrotto Neotec tripod which has quick release legs and rapid positioning using a ball head as I’m sure I’m going to get good usage from it in 2008.
Roger
Hi Sylvie
Your 300mm would work in a similar way to a macro if you had a spacing tube fitted to it. I use a similar arrangement with a 300mm lens and a 30 mm spacer and its good for small blues and skippers. The other advantage to using a long focus lens is that you do not have to get quite a close to the subject so you are not as likely to disturb it. This is not the case with a short focal length macro.
Re the blurred out of focus backgrounds. This is down to the depth of field of the lens. A large f stop size i.e. f2.8, and a lens with a long focal length gives a small depth of field particularly if it is a close up, so the backgrounds will be out of focus.
BTW really nice pics Roger
Your 300mm would work in a similar way to a macro if you had a spacing tube fitted to it. I use a similar arrangement with a 300mm lens and a 30 mm spacer and its good for small blues and skippers. The other advantage to using a long focus lens is that you do not have to get quite a close to the subject so you are not as likely to disturb it. This is not the case with a short focal length macro.
Re the blurred out of focus backgrounds. This is down to the depth of field of the lens. A large f stop size i.e. f2.8, and a lens with a long focal length gives a small depth of field particularly if it is a close up, so the backgrounds will be out of focus.
BTW really nice pics Roger
Hi Dave and Roger,
Thank you for the information. Dave, do you know if I can fit any tube with my Sigma 300mm f/4.? I still haven't gone digital and I am using a canon EOS body camera film. Also do you loose a lot of light with those? Is there any distortion also? Sorry I don't have much knowledge in terms of technical photography.... but this seems to be the best and probably cheapest solution.
Sylvie
Thank you for the information. Dave, do you know if I can fit any tube with my Sigma 300mm f/4.? I still haven't gone digital and I am using a canon EOS body camera film. Also do you loose a lot of light with those? Is there any distortion also? Sorry I don't have much knowledge in terms of technical photography.... but this seems to be the best and probably cheapest solution.
Sylvie
No distortion and minimal loss of light. The latter is due to increased maximum magnification. Some lenses suffer from chromatic aberration at close focus distances, but I doubt yours is in that group. Any extension tube should work, but I would not recommend the cheapest ones without electrical contacts.
Too bad the Sigma does not have IS. That would make hand-holding much easier.
Too bad the Sigma does not have IS. That would make hand-holding much easier.
Hi Sylvie
This will give you basic info on extension tubes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_tube
You can buy them singly or in sets of three and of course all three can be used together to give more magnification.
I have a set of three Kenco tubes but with my 300 mm lens I only ever use the 36mm tube when taking pics of butterflies. However for bees, flies and other small beasties I use all three together
Dave
This will give you basic info on extension tubes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_tube
You can buy them singly or in sets of three and of course all three can be used together to give more magnification.
I have a set of three Kenco tubes but with my 300 mm lens I only ever use the 36mm tube when taking pics of butterflies. However for bees, flies and other small beasties I use all three together
Dave
I have used a Canon 500D 2 dioptre filter type close up lens on a 75-300 zoom with good results. The zoom lens is supposed to be a 'macro' but it's only close up really, getting down to 1.5 meters. The lens at about 200mm zoom and 15" away with the c/u lens attached is good for all the larger butterflies. I have now acquired a 70-210 f4 also with close focussing that is optically better than the 75-300. I'll be trying that next summer with the close-up lens. I also have a Sigma 105 EX true macro, but for me it's difficult to get close to butterflies with it, probably as already said, it can be a bit noisy, and you do have to get really close.
The 500D is a high quality achromatic. Don't be tempted to buy cheap single element versions such as Hoya or generic as they're awful. Raynox stuff is good.
The 500D is a high quality achromatic. Don't be tempted to buy cheap single element versions such as Hoya or generic as they're awful. Raynox stuff is good.