Best lens for photographing butterflies

[RobinP]

Hi

I currently use a 70-200 zoom for butterflies but I can't get closer than about 5 feet for auto-focus to work. OK I get some reasonable shots but what would be the ideal lens to get in closer? I'm thinking maybe the Sigma 105mm or 150mm macro lenses would be a good choice? I don't have a huge budget so something under £300 would be ideal.

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

I use the Sigma 180mm and I still have to get pretty close to fill the frame. I don't know how much they are used ? If I was to go for one of the lenses you mention then I'd pick the 150mm.

neil

[ron1863]

I don't think you will get either for under £300 unless you go for a used one. I don't have either but use a Sigma 70-300mm APO which has macro at 300mm giving 1:2 macro and is O.K. but nothing like the quality of a macro lens.

[NickCantle]

I'm just waiting for 5 butterfly images to be accepted, all of them taken with the Sigma 105mm. Some people are put off by the fact that you've got a smaller working distance but I like the challenge Getting close to a timid butterfly with a 105mm isn't easy sometimes and it makes it feel a little more deserved than something taken with a telephoto. Many people here use the 150mm which gives a little more working distance, but still takes a little knowledge of your subject to use successfully

I'll add pics to the thread once accepted

[pressld2]

I've just accepted them for you Nick - nice shots!

Nick gets great results with the 105 but I prefer the slightly larger working distance of the 150. I'm still editing shots from today but will post a few in the next half hour or so.

Dave P.

[riggy]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Getting close to a timid butterfly with a 105mm isn't easy sometimes and it makes it feel a little more deserved than something taken with a telephoto. Many people here use the 150mm which gives a little more working distance, but still takes a little knowledge of your subject to use successfully

I'll add pics to the thread once accepted

I enjoy trying to get close as well but saying that I am getting a tamron 70 -300 with 1:2 macro next week more for birds than insects I am quite fairly pleased with some of the results I have got with the kit lens I got with the a200 but of course we are never satisfied with the results we get.

Paul

[NickCantle]

Nice one Dave, thank you. As I say, I just prefer getting close to the subject and I enjoy skulking in the undergrowth being stealthy

Here's the images for today;











Nick

[pressld2]

I had a slight feeling of deja vu on that fourth image Nick!

Dave P.

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I had a slight feeling of deja vu on that fourth image Nick!

Dave P.

DOH

Ta Dave

[pressld2]

Okay, here are mine from today (yesterday now) taken with the 150mm Sigma. Notice how there are five different images!











Dave P.

[Mike Jackson]

I'm using the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM. This enables me to get around 150mm away from the subject at closest focussing range. I don't know what camera your using so this may not be an option and cost new is out of your range but it may be worth hanging on until you can afford a bit more.

I actually went out with the intention of buying the sigma 105 but when I tried it I didn't like the feel of it and the AF was very noisy (I generally AF then tweak manually). I also felt the external focussing could possibly spook things. The shop assistant suggested I try the Canon as it was only £30 more.

Here's some from earlier this week hopefully all 5 are different.

[PentaxPete]

Price is the killer - but i managed to get a true 1:1 Panagor Macro lens for £90, and its probably one of the sharpest lenses in my bag, but being 90mm, its a little harder than 105mm for close work.

[Geoff F]

I use a Sigma 180mm, Robin, and it suits me; but it is really a tripod lens and isn't cheap.

A 150mm is a bit more versatile and will double up as a reasonable insect lens as well. The 105 is fine but, as others have mentioned, you do need to get that little bit closer.

I have managed acceptable butterfly photos with my 28-135 at the longer end but even here I find a tripod/monopod helps to capture the finer details.

As an alternative you could try an extension tube, say 25mm, with your 70-200 which should get you around 1 ft closer. I worked like this with my 70-300 but you do lose a bit of light and, once again, a tripod makes all the difference. The price varies between brands but you should get one of the top names for under £100. Auto focus should be OK in good light but whenever possible I prefer manual focus for all macro work.

[RobinP]

Cheer Geoff, some very useful help there. The real problem I have is with the auto-focus, which doesn't work closer than about five feet away, will a Sigma 105 or 150 mean I can get closer and still use AF? My eyesight and reactions aren't quick enough to use manual focus on a fast moving subject like a butterfly.

[Words]

I use the 105 Sigma, and it's excellent. The AF isn't that quick, and it is noisy as it moves but I don't find this spooks butterflies or dragonflies if you can get close (keep your shadow away from them). Here's a Painted Lady

[MartynA]

I'm still using a Tamron 70 - 300mm di zoom with a macro setting. In high contrast settings it's useless due to lots of purple fringing but it's still the lens that I manage to get my best butterfly pics with. And you can usually pick one up for less than £100. No images in the Gallery here, so I can't show you I'm afraid!

I do have a sigma 70mm macro which is great for flowers, but I think you'd need to 180mm for decent frame filling butterflies.

Martyn

[col188]

I use the Canon 100 mm, super fast AF. Camera set to manual exp, auto AF (mostly).
Sometimes set focus manually for extreme close-ups and creep in with camera to eye. Bugs and Butterflies are less skittish of the camera than my ugly face

Col

[Geoff F]

Yes, Robin, any of the 'proper' macro lenses should be able to auto focus at 1 ft or closer. But note the comments about auto focus noise when very close to nervous insects, which is where my 180mm scores a few points, but probably too expensive.

I sometimes find that the auto focus is slow and hunts around before locking on to the subject in poor light so sometimes I manually focus approximately before switching to auto.

[PMG]

For lack of noise and ease of use the 150 is better than the 105 (husband has 150 and I have 105!) the drawbacks are you can't get quite as close to subject with 150 - but the image is slightly sharper than 105 - grass and other un-wanteds can get in the way of the 150. The 105 is noisy and can be seen moving up and down and the AF takes split seconds too long for flighty subjects and when you are close enough to take you don't want to raise your hand to manual focus or fine tweak (I get round that by backing up or down a smidgeon!) Results are excellent but the 150 has the edge on very fine detail is what I have found when doing comparisons ......... Like Nick tho I enjoy the stalk with the 105 and feel that I have worked harder to get my pic with it!

Pauline

[Tobyh]

Up until last week I had been using a Tamron 90mm and although some stealth is needed the lense was pretty sharp -



I've now picked up the Sigma 180mm (secondhand) and am finding the extra working distance a breath of fresh air. With butterfiles you can get some excellent pictures without needing to be right on top of them but you can get in closer if you wish. Secondhand though this was slightly over budget. Judging from my experience using both a smaller and larger working distance I'd say a Sigma 150mm would be great if you can find one s/h.

Good luck!

TobyH

[Fourwings]

I swear by the Sigma 150,its second to none in my estimation, it has the perfect working distance and the images are sharp enough to cut yourself on!
Having said that I happily use my Bigma (50 - 500mm) on the larger Butterflies to great effect.

You should be able to get a second hand Sigma 150 for around your budget price, if not the very next best macro lens has to be the Canon 100mm USM macro, this is also incredibly sharp on image quality and very fast focusing.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Fourwings

I swear by the Sigma 150,its second to none in my estimation, it has the perfect working distance and the images are sharp enough to cut yourself on!

Couldn't agree more. I rate my Sigma 150mm that highly that if anything happened to it I would buy another one straight away, and then start to worry about how I'm going to pay for it

[acherontia]

I'd swear by my tamron sp 90mm 2.8 di macro - it was chosen as a macro starter for me by my macro freak OH. You could afford one of these. I paid £335 but ebay sells at £225 free post.

As was said before - if you want detail you should get close and it's great fun stalking an insect!
OH uses a Nikon 60mm and he has no trouble getting butterflies/moths etc etc. Also his twin macro lighting helps.... my next buy!!

Like birds - a lot's down to field craft. Some people confuse 'macro' with 'close up'.

I think Words has advanced the argument for minimal focussing distance with the image of his painted lady - lovely detail!

One of my first - not as good as some of the others but hand held with natural light - and I'm only a learner at this discipline.


Acher

[PentaxPete]

Nice capture !

Handheld too - i guess then , you used a really wide Ap for a fast shutter speed, as the top and bottom of the Butterfly are out of focus. Thats some real narrow DOF

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by PentaxPete

Nice capture !

Handheld too - I gues then , you used a really wide Ap for a fast shutter speed, as the top and bottom of the Butterfly are out of focus. Thats some real narrow DOF

Cheers!

f4 at 1/320. What I've found out so far is that it's a bit of a juggling act between the aperture/ the shutter speed and the light available. Using a tripod helps - but I'm not always prepared. Also external (or on board fill flash) really speeds things and gets thatfine detail. Till I get custom macro lighting that's the best available to me

Acher