SIGMA 150mm f2.8 Macro or SIGMA 180mm f3.5 Macro?

[Chris]

I am going to ditch my zoom and tubes and buy a proper macro lense this spring... does anyone know which of these lenses will be best suited to butterfly photography and why? I'd be particularly interested in how sharp the images are with both lenses.

[Pete Eeles]

I can only really speak for the macro lens I use which, due to a mistake in shipping, I got sent instead of the Canon 100mm lens I ordered. But I actually received a Sigma 105mm EX macro lens which was so good I decided to keep.

All I can say is that 100mm or 105mm is absolutely fine for me, and you can still take shots from a good distance away from the subject without disturbing it.

As with all things in photography, I suspect you get what you pay for

Cheers,

- Pete

[Ian Pratt]

I use the Sigma 105 EX which is fine although it does hunt from time to time.
All my gallery photos are with this lens.

[Rogerdodge]

I had a Sigma APO MACRO 180mm lens on my Canon EOS30, and was absolutely delighted with it. It is a really sturdy (but heavy) bit of kit, and has withstood some pretty rough handling over the last 4 years still producing excellent, crisp, photographs. I could not find any fault with this lens.
Then I bought a Canon 20D which would effectively make the 180mm almost equivalent to a 300mm lens - a bit loog for handholding I thought, so I purchased the Canon 100mm Macro at the same time.
Very quickly I reverted to the Sigma - it is so good.
I would like to try the Sigma 150mm, but haven't seen one yet.
Incidentally, I have never used autofocus for butterflies - I fix the focus and move the camera back and forth for focussing.
However, when used for other subjects the auto-focussing is fast and accurate, but a bit noisy?
HTH
Roger

[Mark N]

I used a sigma 180mm macro with a 10D for butterflies since 2003 (see link below) and although the working distance was really good i did find it a little too long at times as the focal distance was an effective 288mm! I found that hand holding this lens below a shutter speed of 1/250 sec was problematic which meant cranking up the ISO.

I now have a 5D and already the differnce is noticable in terms of the number of keepers (based on butterfly sized objects taken in the garden in January since i only recently got the camera). I have also recently purchased the canon mr14-ex flash which i hope to have lots of fun with once spring gets here

Really though the ideal combination for a 1.6 crop camera is a 100mm lens as this will be far easier to use than the 150mm or 180mm versions.

Cheers, Mark

http://www.marknowak.co.uk

[Adrian Hoskins]

Over the years I've used various focal length macro lenses for butterfly photography here in Europe, and also in the tropics. Amongst the lenses I've used ( all on 35mm SLRs ) are 105mm Micro Nikkor, 200mm Micro Nikkor, 180mm Sigma, and 105mm Sigma, plus various "macro" zooms.

Personally I found the longer lenses awkward to use. They are heavier, and physically longer, which makes them more difficult to hand-hold, This problem is compounded by the fact that most longer lenses also have smaller maximum apertures, and thus require longer shutter speeds. So for hand-held butterfly photography by ambient light, forget long focal lengths. Even with flash, long lenses are harder to use - you need a heavier, more powerful flash due to the increased distance between camera and butterfly.

The ideal focal length for butterfly photography is about 90 - 105mm. OK you have to approach a bit closer, but it rarely poses a problem - if a butterfly will allow you to approach close enough to shoot with a 180mm, it will almost certainly stay put for the slightly closer approach needed with a 100mm. Also a point often overlooked is that it is often harder to manouvre to get the right angle on a butterfly when using longer lenses. In the tropics longer lenses are a real pain, as Riodinids and Hesperiids often settle under leaves - with a 100mm lens you can lay on your back ( amongst the soldier ants ! ) and point the camera up to see the butterfly, but with a longer lens you would literally have to dig a hole and climb down into it, as the working distance would need to be greater.

The choice of make is dictated largely by your budget. I currently use a Sigma 105mm which retails for about £280, about half the price of the camera manufacturers model. The optics on the Sigma are fine, just as good ( Provia 100 projected on a Leica Pradovit ) as a Micro Nikkor or Minolta macro. However the mechanics are questionable - I've had 2 different Sigma lenses develop focussing problems ( autofocus linkage failure ) - the fault is with the lenses, not the camera bodies. If you can afford it, I'd recommend going for the camera manufacturers 100mm or 105mm macro lens.

Adrian Hoskins

[Guest]

Personally I found the longer lenses awkward to use.

Yet another factor when considering a full-frame digital SLR, where a 150mm or 180mm macro might be advisable, since you won't get the 1.6 magnification from the cropped sensor!

Cheers,

- Pete (torn between a Canon 30D and a Canon 5D, and short of funds either way )

[Alan Thornbury]

I took the opportunity of purchasing a second hand Sigma APO MACRO 180mm lens for my D70 last year. The build and optical quality is superb and the long focal length is particularly useful in certain situations (eg for hairsteaks which sometimes settle a few feet above head height) or in hot weather for very 'flighty' species (eg large fritillaries, wall brown) when you may not get the chance of a close approach. It does require a very steady hand and at least 1/250s exposure if not using flash.

Nevertheless, for convenience and suitability for most situations in the field, I still prefer a 105mm focal length.

Its clear that all the Sigma macro lenses can deliver quite superb results with the right technique and in the right conditions, but don't just take my word for it - there is a picture gallery for each of them. The 180mm macro gallery is at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/180_ ... cro_if_hsm and includes many nature shots including butterflies. From there you can navigate to galleries using other lenses.

[Wayne]

I was going to go with the new EF-S 60mm Canon one. (made for the digital range with cropped sensors)
A friend of mine has the same camera (300D) and he speaks very highly of it.

I was initially torn between that one and the standard 100mm Canon, but I think its the 60mm for me. (be nice for portrait shots also)

I'll post my results when the butterflying season starts :-)

[Adrian Hoskins]

You guys are choosing different focal lengths, and I'm sure you'll each find your choices fine for your own techniques. Ideally of course you would do as Alan has done, using a shorter lens ( 105mm for 35mm SLRs, 60mm for APS digitals ) for the majority of your shots, and a longer lens tucked in the camera bag for things like Purple Hairstreaks or Purple Emperors in trees. If you can only afford one lens, I'd definitely go for the shorter ones ( Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm on a 35mm SLR ). On a digital you would find the Tamron 90mm a good compromise, as it would effectively be about 125mm on an APS format digital. A 55mm or 60mm would equate to about 85mm in film-camera terms, and might be just a little too short for general butterfly photography ?

I'm a bit worried though that Alan seems to suggest that it is wise to base an appraisal of a lens quality on images viewed on a web gallery. A better way would be if the lens maker produced a high resolution file that could be downloaded ( very slow ! ) and printed out. A normal JPEG image viewed on the internet will be very poor in quality compared to a print from a hi-res file, and certainly incapable of demonstrating the quality of which the lens is undoubtedly capable of producing.

Adrian Hoskins

[Chris P]

I've used a manual Tamron SP90 macro lens for insect photography for many years and always found it excellent, as have many others. I recently "upgraded" to a digital version of the same lens to use with my Nikon D70 and found it even better in terms of resolution. A shot with a butterfly occupying about 50% of the frame will allow individual scales (and sometimes scale shape) to be clearly seen (examples available, if anyone is interested). The 90mm focal length allows enough stand off from the subject, but it is not so long that the camera shake problems start to become a limitation.

Recently, before buying a 4 top-of-the-range-digital SLRs at work (choosing from Canon and Nikon pro models), we tested both the Nikon and Canon macro lenses using a high resolution target (a banknote, in effect) on a test bench. and compared the results as well with the Tamron SP90. The only real difference was in the camera resolution (here the Canon scored slightly better), but interestingly, a Velvia 50 slide with the Tamron lens was very significantly better than any of the digital images!

[Adrian Hoskins]

You've hit the nail on the head there !

Using Velvia or Provia slide film will produce stunning detail with any decent macro lens ( Tamron, Sigma, Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax ). No digital camera can come close to reproducing the detail, tonal values, and realism that a good slide film will produce.

If you want the ultimate in quality, use a 35mm SLR and either Fuji Velvia or Fuji Provia 100 slide film.

On the other hand, if you require immediate results, and want prints instead of slides, use a shortish focal length macro lens ( Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm, etc ) on a digital SLR. The shorter focal length will make the camera lighter and easier to manouvre, and will still allow you to get close to butterflies with a little practice. A longer lens such as the 150mm and 180mm macros under discussion, may well provide equally high resolution, and allow a greater working distance; but they will make it harder to handhold, and this will result in softer photos.

Adrian Hoskins