www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi recently got the Sigma 150mm. Really happy with it brilliant IQ.
I have been using it on holiday in Cuba and found that I could use it hand held for butterflies and Dragonflies. I may find I need to use a tripod in the UK though
Pete

I have a SIgma 150mm, and also the 70mm. They're both superb; I bought the shorter lens to give me options compositionally.

Have:
Sigma 70-300mm macro and managed a couple of OK shots but macro not up to much
Sigma 150mm macro and love the HSM motor for continuous manual focus and the tripod mount but hate the ridiculous amount the focus ring needs turning to focus!
Sigma 105mm macro (and had for longest of all). Love the lens even if the MF/AF is a pain. Much prefer to 150mm as quicker to focus (and lighter but that's no big deal)

Canon 300mm f/4 IS - my lazy macro! LOL! Superb lens
Canon 100-400mm f/5.6 IS - great zoom but not as good as the 300mm
Canon 1.4x TC - very useful

Welcome to the forums Markulous - good input. I'd be interested in a comparison with the Canon 100mm macro also Anyone?

Cheers,

- Pete

I have the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, Pete, but I've never used either of the Sigmas (105 & 150) so I can't compare. I can compare it with the 100-400L IS though, as that is my main butterfly "weapon" once I've added three extension tubes (12mm, 21mm and 31mm). I use the zoom + tubes as my walkabout lens while looking for butterflies, as when I find one I can take shots from 8 feet away then slowly get closer, taking intermediate shots, until I reach my closest focus point (about 2 feet from lens hood to subject) When I think I have all the shots the zoom will give me, and providing the butterfly hasn't decided to flutter by, I'll put the 100 on and get (very slowly) as close as possible.
The 100-400 gives me almost guaranteed photos, after all, "first get a photo - then get a good one". I can get perfectly good photos, 98% of the photos I post are from the zoom. That said, the shots from the 100mm macro are slightly better quality, and if you are allowed close enough, you can fill the frame...there have even been occasions where I have added the tubes to the 100 and got shots too. Horses for courses

Martin.

Cheers for the welcome, Pete

Interesting gear you're using, Martin. Know exactly what you mean by getting the banker shot and then going in for the more interesting one - tho' I tend to walk with the 300mm (plus maybe the 1.4x) as I'm usually after wildlife of any sort - I then change to macro. Hadn't considered using tubes with 300mm or macro but have done with my M42 lenses - can see tubes being added to my list of 'wants'

BTW, the concenus seems to be that the Sigma 105mm and Canon 100mm have pretty evenly matched quality but the Canon has a better build, slightly faster focus (irrelevant to me as I use manual) and is, unsurprisingly, more expensive

Hm... I posted a reply to this earlier but donno where it went!

Basically I said I have the sigma 150 and canon 100-400 and for closeup stuff the canon 100-400 is way inferior to the sigma. At a distance say 4-5m they are about equal. I have never tried the canon with tubes however.

I always go out with the inteition of a few stunning shots rather than several OK ones so rarely take the 100-400 out in summer.

I have seen some cracking macro shots with the canon 300 F4 + tubes. It's sharper than the 100-400 and focuses a lot closer. Am tempted by this for a lazy/big subject photography and it will double as a more general wildlife lens too. A great setup with tubes to cover all options for travelling perhaps!

Now you got me thinking, I already have a Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 which I use with a 2x converter, this is quite a heavy set up, and you need to go out armed with a tripod. I was thinking of getting a medium length hand holdable lens, I had My mind set on getting a 100-400mm, but now the 300mm F/4 don't look to bad either. I have had a go with both lenses, and like them both. I have heard before that the 300mm F/4 is sharper, but against that, the 100-400 has a bit more reach, I could however use a 1.4x extender and get to 420mm with the 300 f/4 but would it still be sharper than the 100-400 ?.

Gruditch

Gary,
Itis all down to luck...I'll explain. Regarding the 100-400, Canon has been known to throw out the odd "soft one", but at the same time (and while the run of the mill ones are good) they have also made some super-sharp ones. If you intend buying one I'd suggest you "road-test" the actual lens you intend buying before handing over and folding stuff.
I love my 100-400, and I wouldn't swop it for 300L f2.8 costing three times as much, let alone the f4. It's so versatile, and it's very seldom off my camera (and I have other L lenses)

Martin.

I too have a Sigma 150mm. It isn't the latest model, but an oldish AF model with a max. aperture of F5.6. The max. aperture is not a disadvantage for Macro. It only goes to 1:2 and it's a recent ebay acquisition for the cost of a good meal! Does anyone else here use this lens and what is their opinion of it? I share Martin's preference for a longer reach, using a 1:2 100-300mm (450mm on Digi cam) on a monopod, sometimes with a short tube. Incidentally, another recent purchase, an old Vivitar 28-200 F3.5-5.3 mint condition manual focus lens, is virtually as sharp wide open as it is at f11, where it is very sharp indeed. The lens was made for Vivitar by Koboron and cost the princely sum of £15! An absolute gem.

I never even knew Sigma made a 150mm lens prior to the current 150 macro lens!

Gruditch wrote:I have heard before that the 300mm F/4 is sharper, but against that, the 100-400 has a bit more reach, I could however use a 1.4x extender and get to 420mm with the 300 f/4 but would it still be sharper than the 100-400 ?

I think it is - and keep the 300mm on for walkabout (with/without the 1.4x). Use the 100-400mm for when I'm shooting commission stuff when I need that extra flexiblity - or really need that exta bit of reach. But I'm rapidly coming around to being a prime person - prefer the sharper shots and the compositons become more challenging!

The big advantage of a larger aperture compared to a smaller one is autofocus speed and accuracy. If you always use manual focus for butterflies then this is perhaps less of an issue, but the extra brightness in the viewfinder will still help you focus. I have a 55-200 Sony lens which is quite sharp when stopped down. It's very light and compact, but the maximum aperture at 200mm of f5.6 means it is not as bright as my old 70-210 F4 'beercan'. I've used both with a Canon 500D close up filter type lens but get more keepers with the beercan. I also have a Sigma 105mm but find this difficult to work with despite it being optically superior to the other two lenses.

Thanks Martin and Mark, for your guidance on which lens to purchase, in the end it turned out that, Lisa has decided to sale her Sigma 120-300 F/2.8, and replacing it with a Canon 300 F/4 IS, so I went for the 100-400, as I will have access to both lenses. I must admit I was pretty impressed with the results ( defiantly got a sharp one ), I've even had a go using it for butterfly photography, with I would say, favourable results, I can now see why you sold your macro Martin. Eccels on another thread once said "there is more then one way to photograph a butterfly", wise words

Gruditch