www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

As a new member I must first congratulate everyone involved in this fantastic website.

I have never used blogs / forums before, so apologise if I get this wrong!

I would appreciate some basic advice. I have been photographing birds for some time and have a Canon 40D and 100-400IS lens as well as the standard 17-85. I find that I can't get close enough with small lens, the little critters keep flying away and can't get a full frame with the 400 as the close focus isn't close enough. Are extension tubes the answer and will I loose all the auto functions or should I dig deep for a macro telephoto and if so which one. ( I have read the blog on this and sigma seems to be the way)

Also, how much computer darkroom treatment have these fantastic images had and should I be considering shooting in RAW.

I appreciate that I have a lot to learn but joined up to try and get some advice which will hopefully help me to take better shots.

Many thanks

Tom

Hi Tom - and welcome!

One thing this website isn't short of is advice

In simple terms, I believe you have 2 realistic choices.

The first is to get a 2x converter for the 100-400 lens. I believe you'll lose an F-stop by doing this, but this should then give frame-filling shots. The downside is the sheer weight of such a lens. The autofocus will still be OK. Possibly the best option is to get yourself to a shop and try the converter out.

Many people on the forum advocate the Sigma 150mm macro, although many of us use 100mm or 105mm macro lenses.

In terms of the "digital darkroom" - I believe that most good shots have had minimal tweaking since the best photographers always aim to get things as close to perfect as they can from the outset. So the odd tweak and maybe some re-composing. But nothing drastic. I personally have only ever shot in RAW for the last 4 years It's just so much more flexible and, if quality is your primary concern, then RAW it has to be.

Cheers,

- Pete

With a 2x converter you lose two stops, so that f5.6 at 400mm goes to f11. It also means that you're quadrupling the area magnification because the 2x is in both axes. You will not add any more detail than the main lens can produce, and a teleconverter on a DSLR relies on capturing and magnifying latent detail in a lens that outresolves the sensor by a considerable amount. It is questionable whether ANY zoom, even one with the reputation of the 100-400L, will outresolve a modern DSLR sensor by four times. A short extension tube or a 1.4x TC may give you the closeness you require, but you won't get better than a genuine macro lens. Most here swear by the Sigma EX 150mm. It is very, very sharp.

I have a Sigma EX 105, again a very sharp prime, and a decent quality 1.4x TC with it gives me reach just short of a 150mm with good results.

I agree with Pete regarding using raw rather than jpeg. The former not only allows you to extract the last amount of detail from your images, but also gives you better flexibility with colour, saturation, noise and so much more.

Thanks for the advice chaps, we are off to visit our youngest in Bath this weekend and the place has some good camera shops so I will take the gear and try a few things out.

When I get my brain round how this forum thing works I will upload some of my mediocre comma shots for you all to have a good laugh at but hopefully point me in the right direction.

cheers and beers

Tom

I look forward to your pictures Tom Many of the shots here have been taken very close to the subject; most of mine are from 2 inches away! It does seem though a prime macro lens is the way to go, and I'll hopefully be following that trend sometime. Getting close to butterflies just takes practice although there won't be many opportunities for a while : (

Good luck
Alexander

Hi Tom, I often use a 100-400 with an extension tube for butterfly work, it is especially useful with larger butterflies at a distance, ie Silver-washed Frit at the back of a bramble stand. But in my book it does have it's limitations, and adding a Macro lens to your already wonderful kit, (Canon 40D) would not be a bad move.

Gruditch

Hi to all and thanks for the replies and advice.

Have decided to go for a Macro lens but have only been able to locate the Sigma 105 and the very expensive Canon lenses actually in the flesh, so to speak and try them out on my Canon 40D. The sigma 150 seems to be a special order which is easy enough to buy off the net but I would have liked to try it out first. My local camera shop said they would get it for me but not to try !!!
I'm sure after reading all the comments that it will be great, so do I just jump in and buy one unseen anyway ?

With regard to photo editing etc I have a copy of photoshop elements but have only ever used it to download shots and to remove some dust spots on an image. Does this process RAW images or do I use the Canon Professional software bundled with the camera?
I know I have a lot to learn and apologise if this is all very basic.
I have started taking combined RAW /JPEG images to experiment (not many butterfles around now!) and will spend the winter getting to grips with everything.

Having read some of the other posts some of you seem to be using Picasso - what is that ?

many thanks for the advice so far and again congratulations on a fantastic website.

Tom

so do I just jump in and buy one unseen anyway ?

Yes

I use both the Sigma 105mm and the 150mm and I'd make the following comparisons:

105mm focuses at about 12cm closest, barrel extends to focus, two stage change from AF to MF (gear change and switch) but results in easy/small rotation to manually focus
150mm focuses at about 15cm closest, internal focus, USM motor so simple AF/MF switch but results in much greater rotation to manually focus, heavier, includes tripod collar (allowing easy attachment and simple rotate from landscape to portrait). They both have lens hoods which is a bonus - general protection but specifically when getting close to the subject in foliage/undergrowth

Despite the barrel extending and the rather clunky focus switching, I prefer the 105mm as it's much easier/quicker to focus (and the bugs don't mind the approaching barrel) and a 105mm prime for portraits is, for me, much more useful. Having said that, when I'm tri/monopoding the camera, I do like the tripod collar (on the 150mm) for rotating the camera to get the best composition

Hi Markulous,

Thanks for the comments it has given me something to think about. I have tried the Sigma 105 and found it easy to use but wondered if I could get closer or a larger image with the 150. I would have liked to try them side by side but can't find a 150 in a store anywhere.

Do you get more magnification from the 150 or is it simply that you can be further away from the subject ?

Have looked at your gallery and if I can get anywhere near this quality I will be delighted. Are some of them taken with the 105?

Thanks again

Tom

No, you won't get bigger, just further back. The macro side of things is 1:1 for both lenses (and most macros). Zooms tend to be half that at 1:2 (so further back but image is not as large)

Thanks for the nice comments - ironically, having said I prefer the 105mm, most of those are with the 150mm or my 300mm (1:2 macro) but I've actually take several multiples more with the 105mm than the 150mm!

Ok, I'm getting my head round this now. If I look at 105mm lenses I see that Canon do a 100mm. As I have a Canon camera have you or anyone else, any experience of the canon lens ( apart from they are more expensive!)

From reviews the canon lens is a lot lighter than the Sigma 150 (600g - 895g) and the minimum working distance increases from 150mm to 194mm.

I do note that a lot of people like the Sigma 150 though, so is it the quality of the glass?

I've used the Canon 100mm and the main differences between it and the Sigma 105mm are that it has internal focussing (barrel doesn't extend - as per the Sigma 150mm), the build quality is better but is heavier (the image quality is the same) and the Sigma includes a lens hood (an extra with the Canon)

The focus distance to give 1:1 magnification is
Sigma 105mm 31.30cm
Sigma 150mm 38.00cm
Canon 100mm 31.00cm
The further away you you are from the subject the further from 1:1 magnification (needed if you want to get the whole of a butterfly, for instance - hence me using a 1:2 300mm lens: get the whole butterfly in and allows me to stand off from it)

The advantage with using the 150 as opposed to the 105, is the proximity to the subject. Butterflies have a tendency to B***er off if disturbed, and with the 150 you can work from a greater distance, without disturbing your subject. Some people on this site have had great success using the Canon 100 and the Sigma 105, but most prefer a greater working distance.
Sigma offer the 150mm and a 180mm Macro, Canon have a 180mm and Tamron also make a 180mm, all great lenses but most go for the 150 because A, it is a F/2.8 and the others are half a stop slower, I think ?. and more importantly B, the 150 can be had for about £350.00.

Gruditch

The Sigma 105mm is f2.8 and can be bought for £240

Cheers,

- Pete

As I've already mentioned, you can add a 1.4x teleconverter to a Sigma 105 and turn it into a 150mm F4. You lose a stop, but you gain a 1.4:1 magnification. You have to be careful about using the manfacturers' teleconverters as the front element may not lie far enough back to take the Sigma. This is the case with Sony. The Kenko Pro300 1.4x is good quality and will fit. And of course you can use it with other primes if you've got them.
This red admiral was taken recently with Sigma 105 with Pro300 1.4x TC and Sony A700. It's hand held but I used flash.

thanks Eccles,

your shot of the red admiral is something else!!!

I think I am going to jump in and buy a Sigma 150 before this subject runs for ever!

Thanks to all who have contributed and I will post some shots when I get going.

Tom

As you've discovered, there are several ways of getting good photographs of butterflies, but yours is a good choice. I don't think you'll regret it.