www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi I feel like I'm going round in circles a bit I started out with the Sigma 105 macro then got the 150 and a tripod (manfrotto jobbie with ball head) I cant make my mind up which is best for butterfly photography
I found the 150 and tripod excellent and got nice shots I was really happy with but I've started using the 105 handheld again as I'm finding that I can with patience often get near enough anyway and its a lot easier to get the right angles although I'm often at ISO 800 this is not a problem with the 40D.
I also found that a little bit of the extra reach of the 150 is negated by having to mount it on the tripod mount on the lens as it was not so stable mounted on the camera base
I guess its down to personal preference what do you guys think
Pete

I agree on all counts.

I have the 105mm and the only reason I also bought the 150mm is because of the collar which allows me to move the camera from landscape to portrait extremely quickly.

Although I can stand further back from the subject with the 150mm, getting close enough to the subject with the 105mm was never a problem (for me!), and neither was the fact that the lens barrel moved in and out.

Cheers,

- Pete

As long as your happy with the results Pete, I would stick with the set up you prefer using.
I personally try to steer away from using high ISO's. Although I find using a tripod suuuuuch a drag, I think its a price worth paying.

I can't remember how noisy the 40D was at ISO 800

Regards Gruditch

Good evening,

Do you use a ballhead on a monopod when using the 105mm and if so is it a comfortable set up to use?

Regards,
Andrew.

I use a 105mm macro on a cheap and light monopod £16 from Argos, with a benbo ball & socket head. It's the best system for me. Often when butterflies are above head height, and you have to angle the camera upwards, if i didn't use a monopod, i'd be shaking all over the place. I agree that the 105's are easier to use than longer length lenses hand held, but you have to tie 'Image Stabilisation' lenses into this equation. I gave up on the Sigma 180mm macro idea, and got a nikon 105mm macro instead. Hope it will shine next season.

Same setup as Pete (105 and 150) and use them in exactly the same way. Much prefer the 105mm handheld.

I'm vaguely considering the Canon 100mm IS but it's a lot to pay for 2 stops! One problem is that I'd have to return to Canon (whereas I'm now using Sigma to get my wildlife macros)

Gruditch wrote:As long as your happy with the results Pete, I would stick with the set up you prefer using.
I personally try to steer away from using high ISO's. Although I find using a tripod suuuuuch a drag, I think its a price worth paying.

I can't remember how noisy the 40D was at ISO 800

Regards Gruditch

Hi The 40D is very good at ISO 800, at the moment I'm using it on a regular basis at 1600 taking pics at Chester zoo
Pete

Markulous wrote:Same setup as Pete (105 and 150) and use them in exactly the same way. Much prefer the 105mm handheld.

I'm vaguely considering the Canon 100mm IS but it's a lot to pay for 2 stops! One problem is that I'd have to return to Canon (whereas I'm now using Sigma to get my wildlife macros)

I would love the new Canon 100 but its a bit out of my price range I recon it wont be long before they bring out a 150/180 macro with IS that would be a seriosly useful bit of kit

Pete Eeles wrote:I agree on all counts.

I have the 105mm and the only reason I also bought the 150mm is because of the collar which allows me to move the camera from landscape to portrait extremely quickly.

Although I can stand further back from the subject with the 150mm, getting close enough to the subject with the 105mm was never a problem (for me!), and neither was the fact that the lens barrel moved in and out.

Cheers,

- Pete

thanks Pete the collar is very handy feature on the 150 also the autofocus is excellent on the 150 really fast

tut tut, Pete! I thought you were one of the tripodista.

To sum it up for me, a camera mounted on a tripod at the lowest possible ISO is perfect... everything else is introducing some degree of compromise. Fact. Sure you'll get more shots in the field but I'd rather fly fish for trout than dynamite the lake.

Chris wrote:tut tut, Pete! I thought you were one of the tripodista.

To sum it up for me, a camera mounted on a tripod at the lowest possible ISO is perfect... everything else is introducing some degree of compromise. Fact. Sure you'll get more shots in the field but I'd rather fly fish for trout than dynamite the lake.

Yes I know your are right I am just having doubts !

Whilst I do tend to aim for tripod-ing a shot, there's absolutely no doubt that some of my better shots are without (the two shots in this/next year's calendars are examples). Downside to my using a tripod is that I can faff around, over-analysing the composition and manage to suck out any interest leaving a rather dry, boring result! But then I can even take a number of shots of some subject/scene, tripod or otherwise, (not machine-gunning I hasten to add - there lies madness and failure!) and it's the first one that ends up being the better - the subconcious mind works better than the concious!

Dear all

I decided to resurrect this thread because it concerns exactly the decision I want to make over the next month or so. I use Olympus DSLR's so my choice of lenses is generally limited to Oly and Sigma. Despite owning the Oly 70-300, I find I'm happiest using my 50 macro + 1.4 TC for most of my butterfly photography. It's a light combo which gives me good results (operator error being the cause of any not so good ones, ). I'd like a bit more reach and greater working distance and some am considering the Sigma 105 or 150.

I get the feeling that the 105 is the preferred lens (especially if I wish to carry on hand holding), but wondered if any opinions had changed in the 6 months since folks last put something in this thread.

Many thanks in advance

Chris

Well,,, i've not been taking butterfly pics for long, i started last year in fact. I started with a Sigma 105mm macro, which was fine up to a point. During the winter i bought a Nikon 105mm micro nikkor, hoping to gain a touch more quality. This micro nikkor lens has been reclining in the cupboard ever since i purchased a second-hand 300mm f4 nikon prime. No VR, and not a macro, however it does focus down to under 1.5 meters. It is now my main butterfly and dragon lens. It lets me stand off, and get the shots, and i rarely go above iso 500. This is convenient for my needs, and maybe not for everyone, i'm getting less fly offs, and more keepers. Not particularly good at stealth. So frustrating when they go,,,, i've shot damselflies with it, and never use a tripod, but a monopod. Sorry if i've wandered slightly off topic. Here's a recent pic, sorry about the clipped wing, this is a download prob. due to large image i think.

If we were all to do it ( Macro work ) by the book, it would be a macro lens, and a compulsory tripod. But like Zonda I often end up using a longer lens for butterfly work, in my case a 100-400.

BTW Zonda, I've used Lisa's 300 F4 with a 23mm extension tube, very impressive setup for butterfly work.

Personally, when ever I tried to handhold the Sigma 150, I never had a very good keeper rate. I would say that if handholding is your thing, why does that sound a little gay . Then the Sigma 105, would be a safer bet, the Tamron 90, may be worth a look to.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch said,

BTW Zonda, I've used Lisa's 300 F4 with a 23mm extension tube, very impressive setup for butterfly work.

Really, i'll give it a go, i've got a set of tubes, but hadn't thought about that combo.

I've been followng this thread on the various means of steadying the camera and for what it's worth my method is a home made detachable ball and socket on a monopod. I'm fortunate in having a lathe and turned a piece of aluminium and threaded it to suit the monopod and formed a ball on it. I threaded another piece to suit the camera and formed a socket to match the ball. In use it's vey quick and easy to rest the camera on the pod at any angle.

Thank you for all of the replies so far.

I'm leaning more towards the 105, as I'm not a great tri/monopod user. (Perhaps I should try them; I have enough of the damn things)!

Chris

Personally, I find no difference between using the 105 vs 150 whether handheld or tripoded other than the 150 with it's tripod collar is quick and easy to change from landscape to portrait mode! I use both and have gradually changed from tripod most to handhold virtually all - one advantage has definitely been with the ability to get useful shots @ ISO400, handheld is much easier

Here you go for comparison:
Tripod 150mm


Handheld 105mm


I too have used my 300mm f/4 IS with/without tubes (IS switched off as it doesn't like tubes!) but also use my 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS and Sigma 150-500mm OS - all handheld

Markulous wrote:Personally, I find no difference between using the 105 vs 150 whether handheld or tripoded other than the 150 with it's tripod collar is quick and easy to change from landscape to portrait mode! .....

That's very interesting. Please could you give an indication of the working distance with these two lenses.

Thanks

Chris