www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi all,

As a long time lurker and enjoyer of this site I am posting for the first time - so please be gentle with this self confessed Luddite.
I have a canon 400D with an old and heavy 400 mm lens. I am looking for something lighter (due to arthritis) and better quality. It will mainly be for bird shots but also butterflies and dragonflies. Have been using a Lumix compact for this thus far and am fairly pleased with results.

I realise that a macro is best but can't afford two new lenses.

Therefore am looking at the canon 70-300mm IS USM f/4.5-5.6 which retails at just over £400.
I already have a 2x converter from my film days.

Would this be suitable for butterflies? Or do I need to save up all over again?

Thanks,

Hugh

Hi Hugh, welcome to the forum.
I have a 70-300mm lens which I find is nice for birds, but for butterflies it's a little long although perfectly useable. Getting enough depth of field can be difficult so ideally something shorter might serve you well on the butterfly front. Not everyone likes short lenses of course, it depends what kind of effect you like.

Alex

high Hugh

i also use the 70-300is 4.5-5.6 , good for birds and ok for butterflys/dragons. adding a 12 mm extension tube [kenko ] shortens focal distance for butts
image quality not as good as 100mm macro though.
here are 2 shots

robin shot 300mm f7.1


peacock 275mm f6.3

Hi Hugh,

I dont have the 70-300mm but i bought the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS for birds and while it is an excellent lens, i find it is too short for most bird photography. You need either the 1.4x or 2x extender to make it worth it. As for butterflies, i would never consider using any lens other than the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro. Although its fairly pricey, the quality is second to none in my opinion. You can get close to most butterflies with 100mm if you're stealthy enough. A macro lens will give you excellent detail without too much effort and the 100mm on the Canon 400d would not be very heavy at all. Here are a few of my shots taken with the 500d and 100mm L. More can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_viator including the larger versions and EXIF info.




You can really appreciate the detail on Grizzled shot. Bear in mind that this has been cropped and resized; the fine detail was even better on the original. It was also processed directly from the JPEG though i do shoot in RAW now.

I hope you find a lens that you're happy with

Gill

Thanks both for the replies. Cracking pictures. The canon macro is too expensive for me but the pics from it are fantastic. Bit like comparing a Morris Minor with a Porshe

Am going for the 70-300 as a walkabout lens so was interested in the pics taken with it. I appreciate 300 is the minimum for birding but the 400+ again are too expensive and I guess heavier. When I need extra reach, mainly for record shots I digiscope with my compact - though fairly rubbish at that too

I appreciate the comments made thus far. I will see how I get on this summer with the 70- 300 and then probably look for a macro.

Further comments would be welcome. Guess the 70-300 is better than my 18-55 for butterflies?

Again many thanks for the advice, comments and for posting the fantastic pictures.

Hugh

No problem If you're looking to get the lens a bit cheaper but still brand new, you might want to consider buying from kerso. He is an excellent dealer, delivery is prompt and he is totally honorable. I got most of my lenses from him so i can personally vouch for him. Just over a year ago, Jessops had the 100mm L listed at £802 and i got it from kerso for £679. It is now listed at Jessops for £710 so you might be able to get it for under £600 from kerso. I had a look at his eBay shop and he has the 70-300mm for £339. If you do a private sale, it will cheaper (taking into account the commission charge). He can get hold of any lens you want. It might be worth dropping him an email and getting a price list (kerso1123@msn.com). Or if you can make it to Focus on Imaging at the NEC in Birmingham at the beginning of March, you may well get a good deal on it and you can test the lens out yourself a the Canon stand before buying.

kerso reviews: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums ... hp?t=46451
eBay page: http://stores.ebay.co.uk/FLASH-CAMERA

Were you planning on using the Canon 2x converter with it? Because as far as i know, the 70-300mm is not compatible with the 1.4x or 2x. This is an excellent review site for Canon lenses and is well worth a read before you finally choose your lens. It also states that past 200mm, the lens is quite soft and loses sharpness.

Optically, a 300mm prime will produce much better results with a converter, especially for birds. But then again, a zoom lens will be more versatile. There are so many pros and cons! It depends on your budget, i guess.

Is the 18-55mm the kit lens? I threw mine in the bin!

Hope some of the above information is helpful!

Gill

_astralis wrote:Is the 18-55mm the kit lens? I threw mine in the bin!

Best place for it.

Other Macro options

Sigma 105mm F2.8 £340 from Amazon new.
Canon 100mm F2.8 £349 from Amazon used.

Not sure if the converters will fit on the 70-300, but if they do, you will definitely loose auto focus with them on a 400D.

The 300mm F4 is an excellent lens, without doubt worth the extra time saving up.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:

_astralis wrote:Is the 18-55mm the kit lens? I threw mine in the bin!

Best place for it.

I recently bought a 550D; guess which kit lens came with it.

Not that I was planning to use it for butterflies, but even so, seeing it dismissed so easily is quite disappointing.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I seem to be meeting all of my Flickr contacts on here The kit lens really is rubbish, believe me. Before i got the 500D, i bought the 450D which came with the same kit lens. After taking some photos, i compared them with shots taken on my little Canon IXUS 960 IS and i was utterly gobsmacked. My little compact performed much better than the kit lens! Of course, being new to SLR photography, i didnt think it was a problem with the lens but with the actual camera itself. I could not believe that Canon would supply such a terrible quality lens. I returned it and lost 10% of the price i paid (after a big argument with the manager who basically told me i was too inexperienced to know what i was talking about and that i needed my eyes tested). I looked into the matter further afterwards and it was then that i realised every review site on the internet said the same thing: the 18-55mm is not worth having. I bought the 24-105mm L not long after and the difference in optical quality is astounding. Knowing what i know now, id have probably bought a more expensive camera to get the 24-105mm as the kit lens instead. I now do extensive research before i buy my lenses and although ive spent a lot of money on my kit, its been worth it and ive saved money in the long run. A professional grade L lens is well worth saving up for.

What lens do you use for butterflies?

Gill

I unfortunately ended up owning a 18-55 when I bought a 300D lens kit. It seemed a bit wasteful just leaving it aside, so I now employ it as a paper weight.

I use a 24-105 on my full frame 5D MK II, but on a 1.6x sensor body it can be handier having a wider lens. I always recommend the 17-40 F4L, great value at around £550. But just looking on the Canon site, I think they have now discontinued it. If anyone was thinking of getting one, I would do it before they are all gone, especially as the next equally wide L lens, is the 16-35 F2.8L, but at twice the price.

Regards Gruditch

Hi all

Can someone tell me what is exactly wrong with these 18-55 lenses. Mine doesn't seem too bad although I only use for general stuff not macro work.

I know the original 18-55 non IS lens was totally rubbish but I thought the newer IS version was supposed to be better.

Anyone who has one of these lenses I will happily swap for one of my DVD's then of course flog it on EBay.

Gruditch wrote:I unfortunately ended up owning a 18-55 when I bought a 300D lens kit. It seemed a bit wasteful just leaving it aside, so I now employ it as a paper weight.

Why didn't i think of that? Oh well, at least i have the satisfaction of knowing that mine was probably crushed into a million little pieces somewhere

I have the 10-22mm for my wide angle. In good light, its an excellent little lens. However, in low light, not so much. The sharpness is lacking in that department, but i think thats the case with most wide angle lenses. You lose the finer details because you're shooting so wide. I have considered getting the 17-40mm as it is such a good price but i do tend to shoot most of my landscapes at 12-14mm. And it lacks IS but i guess this isnt so much of a problem when you're shooting so wide, unlike on a macro lens. If Canon do discontinue it, i wonder what they will bring out to replace it? A slightly wider version with IS? It will no doubt be very expensive!

Paul Wetton wrote:Can someone tell me what is exactly wrong with these 18-55 lenses. Mine doesn't seem too bad although I only use for general stuff not macro work.

Hi Paul Where do i start? First of all, i suppose it depends on how fussy you are with detail and sharpness. There is an improvement on the non IS version but the price of it says it all, along with the weight. It is the cheapest Canon IS lens and is too light to have anything good in there. The build quality is bad. Its made of plastic - say no more. Theres no proper focus ring. When manual focusing, i often found that after getting the focal length right, using the extending part of the inner barrel to focus caused the whole image id just set up to shift. Getting the exact focal length is difficult too as when turning the zoom ring, it jumps in decent sized increments instead of very steadily increasing and decreasing. The sharpness is just not there either. My little compact camera performed better. When you see the difference between a shot taken with the 18-55mm and then a shot taken with the 24-105mm L (as an example), the difference is incredible. This review site is excellent for Canon lenses. Take a look at the pictures at the bottom of the review. You can compare them taken with different lenses. The 17-55mm is the clear winner. I had considered buying this one but taking into account the price and the fact that its an EF-S lens (it will only work on a 1.6x body), if i ever upgrade to full frame, i wouldn't be able to use it. It'd be a waste of money. I got the EF-S 10-22mm for an excellent price and i will get my moneys worth out of it before (and if) i upgrade.

But thats just my opinion. Im sure there are quite a few people out there that are happy with the 18-55mm

_astralis wrote: The kit lens really is rubbish, believe me.
...
I looked into the matter further afterwards and it was then that i realised every review site on the internet said the same thing: the 18-55mm is not worth having.
...
What lens do you use for butterflies?

Hi Gill,

Are you perhaps talking about the non-IS version of this lens? The newer, IS lens is supposedly a great improvement optically, and while nobody claims it to be of 'professional' quality, it does get favourable reviews on the web, including on the site you mentioned above:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx
which certainly doesn't rubbish it.

Prior to my new purchase, I'd been using a Canon A720IS compact, sometimes with a 250D close-up supplementary lens. The quality of some of the images I've managed to produce with it have pleasantly surprised me. I had expected a DSLR to perform even better, but on the contrary, most of the shots I've taken so far with the 18-55mm IS lens have been mainly disappointing. Admittedly thay've largely been landscape shots, but even the sharpness of landscapes I'd taken with my compact has generally been better than I'm getting now.

I've been wondering whether the lens might be a 'dud', but it's equally likely that I'm not yet used to the camera. Either way, the experience has taken the wind out of my sails slightly.

Paul

I'm going to have to have another look at the photos I've taken with the 18-55mm IS.

I agree it's not the best but I don't think it's the worst either. Yep build quality is pants and it's very light but if you get one cheap, they can go for around £50 on EBay as folks are dumping them from their kits. On mine the silver line is stick on, but not very well as it came off.

I use Sigma 120 - 400mm for birds and distant stuff and the Sigma 150mm macro for insects and flowers etc. The long range zoom is fine and I can't afford a Canon prime 500mm at around 4.5K and the Sigma is great at macro work. It's not quick but it is sharp. However, it's rubbish for anything at a distance and requires some exposure compensation to darken the shots up a bit.

So I guess as I have hardly used the Canon 18-55mm I can't really comment.

Interesting discussion though and some great shots Phil.

As someone said it's horses for courses and very dependent on your budget at the end of the day. I'm currently after a Sigma 150-500mm for my partner as we're constantly fighting for the 120-400mm as I use it on my video camera as well.

Sorry Gill forgot to mention some brilliant shots also

Pawpawsaurus wrote:Are you perhaps talking about the non-IS version of this lens?

Hi Paul. No, im definitely talking about the IS version as this is the one i have. Im pretty sure the review site agrees with most of the points i raised. Of course, it also focuses on the pros too which, as i said before, are an improvement on the non IS version. I just listed the cons from my own experience It seems as if you are experiencing the same problems i had with the 18-55mm. Dont be put off though. When i got my first SLR, i was also disappointed with the quality, especially on landscapes. Then i took a gamble and bought the 24-105mm L and realised that it was the kit lens that was the problem. There are plenty of lenses that produce better results for a decent price. As Gruditch said, the 17-40mm L is optically excellent and also nicely priced (even if it doesnt have IS). Jessops and John Lewis have it for £600 and Amazon for £590 but you could probably get it cheaper from kerso brand new (see above). For landscapes, you shouldnt really need IS anyway as you'd be shooting on a tripod, so if you think you'd get the use out of it, it would definitely be worth the investment. The 16-35mm L is ridiculously priced. The 24-105mm L is reasonable as it has IS with plenty of extra focal length. If you're planning on sticking with a 1.6x body for a while, you might consider the EF-S 17-55mm IS but this is also pricey. If you want to go wider, the 10-22mm is good but i do find that finer detail is a problem at the wider end. Do you shoot in RAW and do any post processing afterwards? A little tweaking of the sharpness and colour balances in Lightroom will work wonders on a landscape.

Paul Wetton wrote:I agree it's not the best but I don't think it's the worst either.

You're probably right, Paul. I cant really comment on that as im quite happy with all of my other lenses. The 120-400mm is a good range for birds but i do think you need that extra 100mm or so. I would also like a 500mm prime but they are so expensive! I will settle for playing around with the 800mm at the Canon stand at Focus on Imaging I admit, i stick to Canon lenses so i dont know much about Sigma or any other makes. Perhaps i should do a bit of research regarding their lenses. In my opinion, sharpness is key when it comes to macro work. As long as it succeeds in that department, it cant be bad

Glad you like the photos. I had to lie on an ant hill and in rabbit poo to get that one of the Grizzled. Well worth it though

Hi Gill

Nothing wrong with ants and rabbit poo. makes you appreciate the end result all the more.

I'm definitely going for 500mm (Sigma second hand zoom due to price) when I can afford it (should be around £500 compared to several £1000's for canon primes as they only do a 100 - 400mm in their zoom range) for stills. With 400mm on my canon XL2 video camera I get up to around 60x magnification due to the crop factor and the clarity is at least equal to my 20x canon video L lens with a 1.6x converter attached, probably even equals the clarity of this lens without the converter.

The Sigma 150mm macro is at least as clear as some of the Canon macro's, just a bit slower to focus, but I can put up with that to save around £300 or more.

Hi Paul, I never did get on with the Sigma long zooms, I've used the 170-500, and the legendary Bigma 50-500, but I would gladly sacrifice 100mm and have the Canon 100-400.

The Sigma 150 Macro is a fine lens, but there again I don't think there is such a thing as a bad macro lens.

_astralis wrote:The 24-105mm L is reasonable as it has IS with plenty of extra focal length. If you're planning on sticking with a 1.6x body for a while, you might consider the EF-S 17-55mm IS but this is also pricey. If you want to go wider, the 10-22mm is good but i do find that finer detail is a problem at the wider end

I used to have a 10-22 myself, good fun little lens, but with a few draw backs as you say. I think your probably right that a 17-40 F4 IS, will hopefully replace the discontinued 17-40.

The 24-105 is great lens, I just wish it didn't extend when you zoom, and I wish I could remember to turn off IS when doing long exposures. An affordable non Canon option for wide angle, is the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX, I think they do a OS version now, that was a great little wide angle lens, way better than the nasty cheap Canon kit lenses.

Regards Gruditch

_astralis wrote:

Pawpawsaurus wrote:Are you perhaps talking about the non-IS version of this lens?

Hi Paul. No, im definitely talking about the IS version as this is the one i have. Im pretty sure the review site agrees with most of the points i raised. Of course, it also focuses on the pros too which, as i said before, are an improvement on the non IS version. I just listed the cons from my own experience It seems as if you are experiencing the same problems i had with the 18-55mm.

Hi Gill,

Sorry if I came across as disagreeing with you. The plastic body, awkward focusing, rotating front end, non-linear zoom, etc. are all irritants (which the review does indeed agree with), but they shouldn't affect the image quality per se. I would have hoped that costs saved in manufacturing could have been directed towards improving the optical design. Indeed, I'd assumed that Canon would supply a lens which could do the camera justice.

I don't really have any particular interest in landscapes, but at this time of year I couldn't find much else to experiment on. At some point I'd like a decent general-purpose lens which would handle them reasonably, and I was hoping that the 18-55 IS would do the job, but apparently not. At the top of my current shopping list is a butterfly-friendly macro lens, which I'd like to buy soon enough to be able to practise with before the season starts.

Do you shoot in RAW and do any post processing afterwards? A little tweaking of the sharpness and colour balances in Lightroom will work wonders on a landscape.

A couple of months ago I'd not touched a DSLR, so It's a bit early to say that I do anything yet. I've been advised to always shoot RAW, so I may end up using the RAW + L setting in case the camera can get things right without any help.

Thanks very much for your thoughts and advice.

Paul

Hi Gruditch

I had heard that the 170-500 was not a great lens compared to the newer 150-500 which is why the 150-500 is a lot more expensive at the moment for second hand. I think the Bigma just has too much zoom from 50 to 500. This will always affect the clarity of the pictures especially at the 500mm end of the focal range.

I realise that Sigma lenses probably do not compare to Canon when using a long zoom but at half the price they are always a consideration for me.