www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I know there have been a few of these threads before, but most of them seem to have been about macro lenses. I bought a Canon EOS 400D a few months ago, and have since acquired a Tamron 90mm macro lens which fell off the back of a camera delivery truck (well, almost). I reckon I now need to get myself a decent zoom lens, so I can get shots of those beasties that won't let me get close enough to stick my Tamron in their faces.

Whilst I don't have an unlimited budget, I am willing to spend a reasonable amount of money, as I am hoping to get something that will last me for years. Also, June 30th is the end of our financial year in Oz, and inflation and petrol prices are rising steadily. This means that I am in a position to twist a camera salesman's arm behind his back to get a good lens at a better price than normal. So I would love to hear some views as to what would be a good lens to get. It might be worth bearing in mind that I am built like Mr Puniverse, so I can't carry some 20kg leaden lens all day, as I lack the necessary biceps of steel.

Over to you.......

Well, both the Tamron 70-200/2.8 and Canon 70-200/4.0 L IS are probably too short, so you'd want something ending with 300 or 400. The cheap version might be Canon 70-300 IS, but that one is not particularly sturdy. A good solution would be Canon 300/4 L IS USM, but that is not a zoom nor particularly cheap. Then again, Canon 100-400 is not cheap either, but it will probably get plenty of votes soon... There is no easy answer for this, I think.

JKT is right, there is no easy answer. All the replies you get will be for peoples fovourite, and mine is the Canon 100-400L IS coupled with a set of extension tubes...Full frame images of the larger butterflies from 75 cm aint too shabby and the quality is not to be sniffed at...



Martin.

I'll put my marker down on the 300mm f/4 IS - my favourite lens. Use it occasionally with 1.4X TC - and prefer it over the 100-400mm which I use very much less often (but which is good for horse trials and motorsport!)

I went to a couple of camera shops today. One guy tried very hard to sell me the Canon 100-400L IS. I was a bit spooked, as the lens looked bigger than me.

Also look at the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. The quality won't be up to that of the 'L' designation lenses but it does have a 1:2 close up capability that should be adequate for most butterflies.

Whilst I wouldn't instictively vote for the Sigma 70-300mm, I've used the non-APO version and got some OK shots from it (and from the comments of someone who got the APO version, I should definitely have got that as being significantly better!)

Thanks for the input.....

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro seems to be a very cheap lens (or is "good value" a fairer description?).
I've asked the same question elsewhere, and I've had a couple of interesting suggestions :

Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro or Sigma APO 180mm F3.5 EX DG HSM macro, and also get 1.4x and 2x teleconverters

Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM plus teleconverters

Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM

Obviously they're not all zooms, but apparently they're all good lenses. Thinking about it, zoom isn't necessarily that important. Mostly what I need is something with more reach than my 90mm macro.

Although I'm sure it is not quite up to the standard of the 'professional' lenses the Sigma APO is an amazing lens for the price. By far my favourite photograph I have taken was with this lens and was considered good enough to be the front cover of the Transactions of the Suffolk Naturalist's Society and may be published in a national journal soon. I have a Tamron 90mm macro which is meant to be of professional quality. To be honest I'm not sure if I could tell which of my pic.s were taken with the Tamron and which with the Sigma.

Steve

http://www.freewebs.com/stevebabbs/index.htm

I've ordered the Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM.

I'm also going to get a Canon 1.4x teleconverter, for those beasties that stay too far away. And I might also get a Canon 500d closeup lens for the beasties that aren't far enough away, though I'll probably switch to the Tamron 90mm macro for them in most cases.

The 500D close up lens works best with a telephoto zoom as it will limit the focussing range and therefore the available magnification at any focal length. You can use the zoom to vary the magnification, which you cannot do to the same degree with a fixed focal length lens. I have a 500D myself for my Sony kit, and stick it on the front of an old Minolta 70-210 F4 'beercan' zoom. It gives me pictures that are sharp down to pixel level, not far off my Sigma 105mm macro lens in quality, but with better reach. It is quite expensive for what it is, but the quality is first class.

I picked up my Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens today after work. I've been having a bit of a play in my flat. My place isn't well lit, but I've been taking what I consider to be very sharp pics of a business card from about 20 feet away. I just can't wait to get out there and try it with butterflies! Roll on the weekend. The forecast is good, so there should be some beasties around.

I now need to go on a course of vitamins and eat lots of protein to build up my strength, as the lens is a lot heavier than I'm used to. I think it's going to be worth the trouble though

With that bad boy you gonna need support - good tripod or monopod.
Ham

It's OK - I'm going to use steroids. There's no drugs testing in the monthly photo competition

You should be ashamed of yourself, that thing ain't heavy, my petite other half is selling off her Sigma 120-300 F/2.8, and getting the Canon 300 F/4 IS USM, cuz its lightweight.
Go to the gym Sooty.

Gruditch

my petite other half is selling off her Sigma 120-300 F/2.8

How much - P.M. me!

Roger

Gruditch wrote:Go to the gym ...

What's a "gym"?

Cheers,

- Pete

Labour Prime Minister in the 70s?