www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Stung by the criticisms of "butterflies-on-a-stick" I purposely took the following lenses to Provence:
1) 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor wide-angle kit lens
2) 90mm f2.8 Tamron macro
3) 200mm f4 Nikkor macro
The 18-55mm was used to capture some more of the backgrounds behind the "butterflies-on-sticks" that have been missed with the blurry-background provided by a macro, whilst I included my 90mm Tamron just to see exactly what the shorter-working distance did to image quality compared to the longer 200mm.

I also wanted to see the difference in image quality and detail between the wide-angle and macro images:
The same butterfly with different lenses and end-result, though I tried to get the butterfly the same size in both shots...Judge for yourselves the differences. I also wanted to use the wider-angle to emulate the shots that compacts can deliver. This required a 2 camera day; my workhorse for macro is the 200mm and that stayed firmly put as my first-choice to get the detailed shots I am after. But when I had time, I used the 18-55mm both as a macro and at a wider-angle in a variety of shots....
"Macro" shot: ...I have to admit that of the two, the 18-55mm looks better here!

Wider-angle (to get both butterflies in focus; can't easily do this with a macro...) I will now always carry a wide-angle lens on a 2nd camera, since the kit 18-55mm VR lens performed well over a range of tasks and does give some flexibility in type of shot delivered, particularly for illustrative purposes and general snaps. The macros, particularly for printing purposes, deliver detail in excess of the 800 pixels we show on screen, but the kit lens delivered almost equal quality displayed on the web, which surprised me. It has been a useful exercise for me too; I will continue with a few more different shots and my 90mm and 200mm macro shots when I have more time....
N

Interesting to see the different perspectives. I like the effect of including more background (as long as the bokeh's good), but I'd hate to be restricted to short macros with reduced working distance. I also like the isolating ('butterfly on a stick') effect of longer lenses. I guess it's good to have the variety, as you have achieved here.

How do you account for the very different colours between the first two shots? Is that down to different lens, light or processing?

I also intend to try some wide angle/scenic butterfly shots. I don't think we quite have the dramatic landscapes around West Hampshire, for the kind of shot I'm envisioning. But I know somewhere that does. The trick I think will be to not blow out the sky, and picking the right F stop. We will see what I can come up with in a couple of months, rubbish probably.

Regards Gruditch

dilettante wrote:How do you account for the very different colours between the first two shots? Is that down to different lens, light or processing?

In answer to a different question, the first picture conveys the truer colours, in terms of what the eye sees. Rosy grizzlies always have a distinctly russet glow to the underside, visible in any light.

I'm looking forward to your scenic pictures, Gruditch!

Guy

dilettante wrote: How do you account for the very different colours between the first two shots? Is that down to different lens, light or processing?

I think both were taken in different light conditions (it was a sun'n'shade day) and respond slightly differently to my standard settings for processing. And one camera was a D7000 and the other a D300.....
It does show how different lenses vary with light-conditions throughout the day and that processing may not "equalise" the colours (though I guess I could in Photoshop; h'mm must look at that, along with the other 94 things... )
Edit : Tweaking the exposure and brightness I came up with this for the macro.... against this: ..almost there...and remember, the colours on the butterfly are always moderated by the background colours, too...
N
Edit: Short macro - great if you can get in to use it; but give me my 200mm any day to guarantee more shots....

Gruditch wrote: The trick I think will be to not blow out the sky, and picking the right F stop. We will see what I can come up with in a couple of months, rubbish probably.
Regards Gruditch

I think you hit it there! An alternative approach is to accept that the sky will be blown out (despite best efforts) and concentrate on getting the exposure for the butterfly right, with decent composition. With judicious cropping for composition, the blown-out sky will disappear as a strip across the top or corner of the picture and gets lost by the eye as it focuses on the butterfly....
Alternatively take two pictures - one exposed for the sky - and merge the two, or simply change the colours, in Photoshop.
But that would be cheating (wouldn't it?).....
(Edit: An example I prepared earlier.....

The trick I think will be to not blow out the sky

Gary
I am probably tyrying to teach granny to suck eggs (just what does that actually mean??)
However - try a circular polarising filter.
Simply rotate it until the image is darkest.

Must try to meet up again this season.

A polariser can tend to give a bit of a, too blue in the corners effect with a wide angle. I use a grad filter, but you still have to be careful with the skies. Hm I've just had a great idea, not telling.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote: Hm I've just had a great idea, not telling.
Regards Gruditch

Go on - share it...

To get the full effect of the mountain scenery, I was planning on doing a few panoramas. If I could work a butterfly into a good mountain panorama.

Regards Gruditch

I think high alpine butterflies, perhaps more than any other group, benefit from a good backdrop. The mountains are part of their character, and to isolate the butterflies from the rocks and hills and alpine plants seems to me to be to take away their essence.

This is a peak white:



I'm not saying it's a brilliant picture, photographically, but it does set the species in its context, and give it its own special smell. Without the background it's just a mutant Bath white.

If you can work a species like that into a really good panorama, Gruditch, it will be fantastic.

Guy

padfield wrote:I'm not saying it's a brilliant picture

Yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, I beg to strongly differ!

EDIT - And Sami adds that it's an amazing pic. So there you have it!

I agree - that's a really beautiful photo, Guy! Great stuff.

Cheers,

- Pete

I'm glad you like it! But I really wasn't fishing for praise. If I can get that kind of effect with a compact (that particular picture was two cameras ago, with a 3 megapixel Canon compact) then a photographer with the right lenses (and a bit of luck, of course) must be able to get some pretty spectacular vistas I would think.

Guy

EDIT - when LOTSW came out last year they took some lovely scenic shots but I don't think they tried to put butterflies in them too (if I remember correctly) - probably the wrong lenses for the job.

Last year, Guy, we didn't have time to think about doing scenic stuff
There was always a new species and new location to go to.....
I'm afraid it is always macro first, for me, Guy - but you have shown how it can be done!
I'd try do the same tomorrow - if I had peaks like that at the end of my garden!

But on a more serious note, when I go back to Switzerland, it will be for more than 5 days and therefore I will have time to do more photography, rather than macro (which I love ...) to take in the stunning beauty of those places and take some shorter macro-zoom shots that bring-in the backgrounds, as well as experiment with a longer zoom, for the same reason. It is also a photographic challenge......

Another "butterfly-on-stick"....taken with the 90mm Tamron (a bit softer compared to the 200mm) compared to (previously posted elsewhere) a similar butterfly taken with the 200mm: :

Note, two different days and butterflies. Although a 90mm macro allows for a closer working distance and should capture better detail than the 200mm, it does not necessarily give a better image. It is more critical to get the focus spot-on and be completely parallel to the wings, compared to a longer length macro, otherwise any softness will be emphasised using the 90mm. Shot from further back with a 200mm macro, the extent of the area of softness is smaller, since it is a smaller proportion of the distance to the lens on a 200mm than a 90mm. Hence, with the 90mm above, there is a little softness on the wing-tips as the butterfly had its wings extended at an angle of 185 degrees, just off horizontal, making the wing-tips just on the edge of the area of sharpness.

Either macro can produce good results...but the 200mm is a more flexible lens, as it focuses from about 50cm out to about 5m as a working range.
N
Edit: So much so am I convinced that a wider-angle macro-zoom is a useful piece of kit, I have ordered a Sigma 17mm-70mm zoom EX DG f2.8 "macro"
.....(couldn't run to the OS version )

It's a great challenge, and quite a difficult discipline. I suppose the ultimate aim, would be to take a good landscape photograph with a nice butterfly included. With skies, you are going to have to get into ND grads ideally, as all landscape togs do. Is the aim front to back sharpness with the butterfly in perfect focus? Guy's pic shows what is possible with a compact, and its a beauty. Some quite cheap compacts can render amazing DOF. I'm off to set up my tripod for a landscape shot, and wait for a butterfly to come along, and pose.

NickB wrote:Although a 90mm macro allows for a closer working distance and should capture better detail than the 200mm, it does not necessarily give a better image. It is more critical to get the focus spot-on and be completely parallel to the wings, compared to a longer length macro, otherwise any softness will be emphasised using the 90mm. Shot from further back with a 200mm macro, the extent of the area of softness is smaller, since it is a smaller proportion of the distance to the lens on a 200mm than a 90mm.

Are you sure? I thought that the DOF was pretty much a function of aperture and magnification ratio at the macro and close focus range. The longer lens would give better background blur, but that was due to BG being magnified, not from difference in DOF. The advantage of a longer lens is in the working distance and the disadvantage in the short times required when hand-holding - at least that's the way it is for me. The Sigma 150 OS is quite interesting...

As to the landscape shots, the Tokina 35 mm macro might be useful addition. Not exactly a wide angle, but useful anyway. Besides, it would make a good scanner for large originals.

JKT - I take on board what you say - you are right.
In practical terms the bigger the butterfly in the viewfinder (ie the closer you get) the more chance you have of getting some part of the image outside the area of sharpness with the d-o-f available, particularly with a macro compared to a wider-angle lens. I think that is a common mistake - getting too close - and one I still make! Stepping back a few centimetres can do big things in terms of capturing sharper images, I find.

Two examples - Same butterfly, both taken using a Sigma EX f2.8 24mm-70mm macro,
First from around 110cms; the second from around 25cms, but at a slightly different angle.... I can say it is a lot harder than using my 200mm macro - having to get in closer - but it does not isolate the butterfly so much.
N

by padfield (that particular picture was two cameras ago, with a 3 megapixel Canon compact)

Actually, compacts are great for this type of photo, as the short focal-length lens has a physically tiny aperture, which gives the depth of field needed. It's quite difficult to achieve this effect on a DSLR without an ultra-wide lens and very small aperture.
Mike