Macro dilemma

[kilbey252]

Hi all

Yep, another indecisive person re. which Macro lens to plump for!

I'm using a Canon 40D and will be photographing a range of subjects but largely small insects (aquatic in particular), butterflies, dragonflies and damsels, + a lot of plants.

Choices are:

1. Canon 100mm 2.8 - seems to be the only choice if I want a snappy focusing lens. Quality sounds excellent but focal length???? Is 100mm a good all round FL or am I going to be wanting more? (never ventured down the macro path before!). Will it be difficult to capture butterflies/dragonflies unless v. slow moving.... or dead?
2. Sigma 150mm - Gets good reviews but AF slow. Does AF matter in macro photography? I'm assuming that it's very useful for subjects that don't sit still! Have heard that vignetting is a problem with this lens... any takers??
3. Tamron/Sigma 180mm - anyone using these?? If I'm doing aquatic insects in aquariums will this be too long? Which has the edge and why?

Any other great (and affordable) options I'm missing??

I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm after only the highest image quality so any comments about IQ for these lenses of particular interest.

Many thanks

Dave

[LCPete]

Hi Dave I've got a 40D with Sigma 105 and 150mm.
Really pleased with both of them. I got the 150 this year for more reach for shy subjects
Both excellent IQ I find I can use the 105 hand held easily but use a tripod for the 150
Ive not used the sigma/tamron 180 but have heard that the 150 has better IQ but that may be hearsay
Pete
PS I use autofocus nearly all the time on the 150 sometimes manual on the 105 as its a bit slower
never had any vignetting problems

[BruceP]

Originally Posted by kilbey252

Hi all

Will it be difficult to capture butterflies/dragonflies unless v. slow moving.... or dead?

Dave

I knew someone who produced superb macro photographs of insects and could never figure it out until one day he admitted carrying a can of hair spray...

I am not suggesting this or endorsing it.

[kilbey252]

Thanks Pete, that's good to know.

You find the AF on the 150 pretty good then?

Just out of interest, how close with both lenses would you need to get to a red admiral for example, in order to fill the frame? Can't picture the range of these lenses.

Thanks, D

[brianwaugh]

I'm a Nikon camera man and for Macro I use the Sigma 105 Macro lens which I find very good quality. As with all macro lenses it does entail a close approach to your subject and this can mean getting your lens within inches of your subject. Not always practical due to the flighty nature or the location of your subject. It can also be difficult if for some reason you have limited mobility ( due to age etc ) . Have you tried using a large telephoto lens with extention tubes ?
I reg use a Sigma 100-300 lens at 300mm with one or tubes fitted, the set up allows me to use a tripod with ease keep a good distance from the subject ( you will fill frame on say a butterfly at 4 feet distance ). Life is easier and it allows you to get off many " first record shots " without disturbing the insect and then switching to a macro lens if it stays settled.

[DavyG]

I own and use both the Sigma 105mm and 150mm macro lenses, they are both good lenses.

Overall I prefer to use the Sigma 150mm as I don't need to get so close to the subject but, as it's heavier than the 105mm, I use a monopod or a tripod with it.

There are quite a few good photographers on this board who also use the Sigma 150mm, have a look through the insect galleries and you'll find some excellent examples of what this lens can do.

Dave

[kilbey252]

Hi Brian

That sounds good. I have a 400mm f5.6 lens. I've just had a quick look into tubes and you can get different sizes.

What exactly do these do? Just allow you to close focus more (i.e. reduce the min focus of the lens from say 3m to 1.5m??)

Cheers
D

[brianwaugh]

yes thats right they are essentially close focusing devices. You usually by a set of three 35mm 22mm and 12mm ( approx off the top of my head ) and you can use them in any combination 1, 1+3. 1+2 etc. there is no glass in them so there is no point in paying for the expensive Nikon or Canon tubes, go for the Kenco make ( he hee) .
Why should Nikon and Canon air be dearer ?

[kilbey252]

"Why should Nikon and Canon air be dearer ?"

I totally agree! I'll have a look at Kenco then. Thanks for the tip.

I imagine the trade off with the tubes is a drop off in light the longer the tube. Is there a rule of thumb for stops lost per mm at all??

[brianwaugh]

is their a rule ? probably is but I don't know of it and in practise it doesn't seem to make much difference, and don't forget being that bit further away you can always fire off a little fill in flash from the camera. If possible lower the power setting on the camera by -1.5 or thereabouts so its not too harsh.