Macro lens for micro moths?

[eccles]

What would happen if one added a narrow extension tube between the two?

Interesting suggestion. I don't know, although one could possibly get some vignetting.

[Dave McCormick]

I just got quite a bit more money and was thinking of getting the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 would it fit my 400D? If I got this lens, it would slove my problems.

[Pete Eeles]

I just got quite a bit more money and was thinking of getting the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 would it fit my 400D? If I got this lens, it would slove my problems.

I'm not sure if you need to go that far Dave (which is an expensive route). I can get images like those you've posted with my Sigma 105mm macro and, if I need more magnification, just attach an extension tube (or 2, or 3 ).

I had an MP-E a little over a year ago, mainly for photographing butterfly eggs, and didn't get on with it at all. I was getting shots that were just as good with my 105mm + extension tubes. Perhaps I could have persevered, but I came to the conclusion that, for super-macro, you need a very stable platform (i.e. a very stable tripod), a means of performing very fine adjustments to the focusing (i.e. not the lens barrel, but some kind of adjuster on the tripod head plate) and probably focus stacking (i.e. taking multiple shots in different planes of focus and then bringing them together, digitally) since the depth of field at x5 is so narrow. All in all - too much for me!

Cheers,

- Pete

[JKT]

Perhaps I could have persevered, but I came to the conclusion that, for super-macro, you need a very stable platform (i.e. a very stable tripod), a means of performing very fine adjustments to the focusing (i.e. not the lens barrel, but some kind of adjuster on the tripod head plate) and probably focus stacking (i.e. taking multiple shots in different planes of focus and then bringing them together, digitally)

You definitely need all three.

I have a Novoflex focusing rail and the stick slip effect makes focusing difficult even with that. Stacking usually works, but requires many shots and much care. I have to admit that the camera is in vertical position, so the static forces on the gear are considerable.

Then again some pictures are rather difficult to get in any other way (well, a microscope would do as well ). The attached picture was used to ID the species in question... There was no attempt to get more than the important parts in focus. (Canon 40D, Canon MP-E 65, Canon MT-24 EX, Manfrotto tripod & head, Novoflex rail + CombineZP) Oh yes, the picture could be considered explicit material.

If you are not after details, then I think that the MP-E 65 would be perfect for full frame, but it is a bit too much for crop bodies - even for micro moths. It would be much more versatile if it were 0.5-3:1.

[Dave McCormick]

Well I have been thinking about this and maybe I don't know too much about lenses, but I thought the lens I had in mind, the MP-E is a bit pricy and I think the teleconverter/extension tubes would be better and suit me more. Will this work with my Sigma lens: Kenko MC-4 2x DG Teleconverter or would the 1.5x be better as I have not seen may great reviews of the 2x converter?

[Pete Eeles]

Well I have been thinking about this and maybe I don't know too much about lenses, but I thought the lens I had in mind, the MP-E is a bit pricy and I think the teleconverter/extension tubes would be better and suit me more. Will this work with my Sigma lens: Kenko MC-4 2x DG Teleconverter or would the 1.5x be better as I have not seen may great reviews of the 2x converter?

Hi Dave - I use extension tubes from Jessops - cost about £70 I think, for a stack of 3. That is used on a Canon 30D + Sigma 105mm macro lens. I think this would work fine for you too

Cheers,

- Pete

[JKT]

I don't think that one stack would be enough for the small ones. Two might suffice, but that would make too many joints. I think the best choice would be the 1.5x teleconverter + tubes. I find the tubes less versatile, so I'd use them only when needed.

Then there is one more thing to consider: The effective aperture at the max magnification is so low that autofocus probably won't work. The view from 400/450D is not the best for that purpose. One solution is to take more pictures.

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks all for you advice, I have quite a few ideas now, so I'll let you know what I finally decide on, but it won't b the 65mm MP-e lens. However I don't really think I need anything extensive. I found this image of a micro moth I took with my Sigma 105mm. Its only a few mm in size:

[Dave McCormick]

Well, I have decided now that I won't get a macro lens, my 105mm is quite good as it its. But insead I want to get a lens for birds. I love birds and seeing the shots on here, I feel I should get a good birding lens. Anyone know which lens would be good for birds? I don't want to spend too much, got about £300-400 I can spend on the lens.

[Rogerdodge]

Dave
Have a look on E-Bay for a Sigma 50-500 also known as the Bigma.
Do not be tempted by the 150-500 as it is not in the same league.
If buying a Sigma lens, look out for the EX in the name - they are EXcellent.
Another option is a 2nd hand Canon 100-400, and add a 1.4X converter from time to time. You will lose AF, but the results can be very good.
I am sure you will get many, equally good, suggestions.

Roger

[NickB]

I just bought a Kenko Pro 1.4TC to add to my Tamron 90mm macro. Works well, keeps AF - loose 1 f-stop - and results (with limited testing) seem acceptable.
Can search for AF and be slow sometimes - but that is generally true of the Tamron...
N

[Gruditch]

Dave being a Canon owner, you have plenty of great birding lenses at your disposal, from either Canon or a third party, unfortunately you can't afford any.

There are a couple of Sigma's the 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO can be had for £469.00, and the 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG APO, for £399.99. It's not a EX, so it's probably pants like the 150-500.

If you do go looking into the used market, make sure that any Sigma lens is a Ex, as Roger says, and also a DG, as the older Sigma lenses will not work properly with your Canon.

Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

I saw a 3x Kenko teleconverter, would that work if I put it before my sigma 105mm, how much distance would I get? I know I will lose a f/stop or so

[Rogerdodge]

David
Just stick a bid on this and stop mucking about with 3x convertors. They degrade the image, and you lose 4 stops!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/sigma-50-500mm-bi ... 240%3A1318

If you get this for less than £400 you are doing very well and will not regret it.

Roger

[Gruditch]

Dave, Roger is right, forget the damn converters!
But I can't see DG mentioned anywhere on that lens, on Ebay. If it's not a DG, you need to ask the seller, if it has been sent back to Sigma, to be re-chipped, because as I said, the old Sigma's do not work properly on Canon DSLR'S.


Gruditch

[eccles]

Dave, I too have heard that the 135-400 Sigma isn't too good at the long end although I don't know how the newer 120-400 compares. Likewise, the 170-500 falls down for the same reason.
And as the other guys are saying, you really should forget the idea of a 3x teleconverter. Most of the time, unless of very high quality and tied with a stellar prime, a 2x TC is pretty much a waste of time as well, although with a decent prime or a *very* good longish zoom a 1.4x TC can give you useful extra reach. This does not include £150 tele zooms. They're ok for what they are but any teleconverter stuck on one will be disappointing.

Take a look at Xmilehigh's recent owl shots in the sightings forum. If you need any convincing that the Bigma, i.e. the Sigma 50-500mm EX, is a good birding lens, they should do it as that is the lens he used.

Sigma does seem to have some reliability problems with some of their lenses, so when buying second hand you need to check that the lens is still current. That way, if anything does go wrong you can get it repaired, and Sigma service is quite good in that respect.

For anyone else, Gruditch's point about older Sigmas is also true of other manufacturers' cameras. This is because Sigma don't pay royalties to the OEMs but reverse engineer their lens electronics to work with current camera models. When new models come out the OEMs may make changes that are compatible with their own lens ranges but not necessarily so with Sigma's.

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks, the bigma seems exactly what I want, I'll check ebay and see if I can get one in my price range.

[Rogerdodge]

Dave
These were all taken with a Bigma.
You won't regret it.
Roger

[Gruditch]

When looking for your used Bigma Dave, you should keep an eye out for a Canon 100-400 IS, and a Canon 300 F/4 IS.
I've had first hand experience with both the Canons, and the Bigma, and think all three are great lenses.

The Canon EF 300mm F/4 L IS USM is a prime lens, so forget all that stuff we said about converters, attach a Sigma or Canon x1.4 converter on this lens, and you get a very sharp 420mm at F 5.6, with full auto focus. At just 1190g and with built in IS, plus a panning IS mode for flying birdies, this lens is easy to use hand held. I did see one of these going for £500 used, in London Camera Exchange a few months ago, so you never know on E-bay.

Like the Bigma the Canon 100-400mm L F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is a zoom. The 100-400 has IS just like the 300 prime, at 1380g it's a bit lumpy, but still easy to hand hold, if that's your thing. This lens has been around for donkeys years, so it should be easy to find used, and maybe within your budget.

The Sigma 50-500 F/ 4-6.3 DG HSM ( Bigma ) has the extra mm. At one time I would of always gone for longer lens, but there is more to choosing the right lens than that.

All three lenses are tried and tested, all produce great images and all are very popular.

Of the three, I think the Canon 300 F/4 IS is the nicest to use, a lovely light compact simple lens, just a joy to use.

The 100-400 ( dust Pump ) as it's sometime known, is a great lens, I love the push pull zoom, some don't so try before you buy. I often stick it on my 40D and take it to work, easy to hand hold, and very versatile, also looks sexy in the Canon grey.

The Bigma on a canon body with no IS, and weighing 1842g, is strictly a tripod lens, but it does have those extra mm. I'm a bit biased ageist the Bigma, only because it feels a bit like the 170-500 Sigma to handle, and I hated that lens with a vengeance.

All three are great lenses, that will serve you needs well, hope this helps. Gruditch

Who took those pics Roger

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks Gary,

I am holding out to see if I can get the Bigma, but if not, I'll look at the Canon you suggested. I do have a strong tripod and a remote for my camera too, so I can get the shots, with that weight, it would be not good to shoot handheld. And I will forget the converters.

And nice shots Roger!