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.

[glsammy]

They do reduce the light levels reaching the lens, so you lose shutter speed. Very useful accessory though, they work well with Macro lenses to try and go as far as you can for better than 1:1. I've never used them with my "normal" lens, although they can help reduce the minimum focus point usually at the cost of infinity focus.
Mine were from Jessops, well made with full metering.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by kilbey252

Hi all

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


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??



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

Now that's something I've never heard or seen with this lens. Your usually using it as a macro lens, I doubt you'd even be aware of any Vignetting, even if there were any, which there isn't!
It's a superb lens, works brilliantly with TC's. I hardly ever taken my 1.4X TC off it.
As for slow AF, it's only slow when going from one extreme to the other. Most macro lens suffer with this. It has a focus range limiter switch to reduce the problem, but it's not something that's ever bothered me. I more often than not use manual focus anyway with my close up shots.

[Nick T]

Funnily enough I've just bought a second hand sigma 180 but it's in mint condition. I can't really give you a critical review as I'm still trying to do battle with it myself.

A couple of things I can tell you are:-

1. I've found it easier/better to manual focus it rather than relying on the AF (but I think this is true for a lot of macro lenses)
2. It's a bit of a beast to hand hold for a long time so a tripod/beanbag or some other sort of support is useful

I did try it in my Greenhouse taking some shots of the cacti in flower and for a giggle I stuck the 1.4x converter on it and it worked OK so I tried a 12mm extension tube as well and it still worked OK so it's versatile if nothing else

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Nick T

Funnily enough I've just bought a second hand sigma 180 but it's in mint condition. I can't really give you a critical review as I'm still trying to do battle with it myself.

A couple of things I can tell you are:-

1. I've found it easier/better to manual focus it rather than relying on the AF (but I think this is true for a lot of macro lenses)
2. It's a bit of a beast to hand hold for a long time so a tripod/beanbag or some other sort of support is useful

I did try it in my Greenhouse taking some shots of the cacti in flower and for a giggle I stuck the 1.4x converter on it and it worked OK so I tried a 12mm extension tube as well and it still worked OK so it's versatile if nothing else

I've used my 150mm with 1 x 2XTC Plus 2X 1.4X TC's! Not the brightest of images through the viewer, but it worked none the less. One of the image I got was this one:

[nightshade]

I opted for the 105 on the cost basis,closest focus between 105 and 150 is a couple of inches difference but on the whole the 150 gives more flexibility.
I use the 105 with the Kenko 1.4 and/or tubes (same make) it is light and easier to handle than the larger 150
PS Amateur Photographer have just run a test on macro lenses Canon 100 ,
105 Sigma, Tamron 90, Nikon 60.

[GME]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I've used my 150mm with 1 x 2XTC Plus 2X 1.4X TC's! Not the brightest of images through the viewer, but it worked none the less. One of the image I got was this one:

Woah! That's some setup Great result though Graham!

[ron1863]

If this helps, it's an excellent review of the Sigma 180mm macro and the guys not a bad nature photographer too

Juza Nature Photography

[eeyore]

I have the tamron 90mm which i use a lot with a 2xtc (note that the canon 2xtc doesnt fit on this lens - get a sigma, tamron or kenko if you go this route) this effectively creates a f5.6 180mm for about half the cost of the f2.8 180mm - and how often do we use f2.8 and f4 with macro anyway - mostly i seem to be stopped down to f22 trying for a decent depth of field.

btw i nearly always use manual focus (unless photographing flying dragonflies or something similar)

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by 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

I am a total novice at this, but I would say if you are going to invest money at that level, get down to the local camera store and have a play with stuff there (take patterns to photo etc) until they know your first name and make you a cup of tea when you go in. There are three branches of A Well Known High Street Retailer that are within the area, 2 are so unhelpful, 1 will let you sleep there if you want to (perhaps a slight exaggeration. Where do I spend my money? (and not very much of it)? With my helpers in the third shop! As they have a big on-line presence too, I get a fair price.

[LCPete]

Originally Posted by 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

hi Dave sorry for the delay I work shifts
Just measured it using a picture of a Red Admiral in a book and the 105 is 14 inches from the front of the lens to the subject and the 150 is 25 inches

Pete

[kilbey252]

Hi Pete

Great, thanks!

Dave

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

the sigma 180mm will fill the frame at 30 inches.

For anyone who is interested the old sigma 300mm f4 macro , which I've had re-chipped , will fill the frame with a Red Admiral at 44 inches.

Both these lenses produce publishable images.

I also use a Tamron 90 which is also excellent.

neil

[Hamearis]

Back in the old days (film - anyone remember that?) I got a Sigma 180 APO Macro EX HSM IF for my Canon 35mm SLRs. This for butterflies, other bugs and flowers.
I loved it - really solidly built with images really pin-sharp, and lovely out-of-focus softness.
Then I moved to DSLR.
The much talked about crop factor would have had me wielding something close to an equivalent of 300mm. So, at the same time as the 20D, I ordered the Canon 105mm Macro.
There is no doubt that it is a fabulous lens, but I just never really got on with it, and soon sold it.
I now use the old faithful 180 for most of my photographs (the remainder are birds on my Sigma 500 4.5).
I can hand hold reasonably well at 1/250 but prefer a monopod, and much prefer a tripod if I can.
Would I buy the 180 again?
Actually,....... no!.
My lens of choice, should I lose the 180 would be the Sigma 150 Macro. A few of my friends have it and it is a great bit of kit - fast at 2.8, and not physically over long - easier to fit in a kit bag, and lighter to cart around all day..
HTH
Roger

[Leif]

Originally Posted by kilbey252

Hi all

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

I suppose it helps to know why you might prefer certain focal lengths. So ...

Long focal lengths - ~200mm and more - allow you to keep your distance from skittish insects and potentially dangerous or unpleasant creatures such as snakes. They also have a narrower field of view, which makes it easier to achieve a smooth uncluttered background, which many, myself included, prefer. Most also have a tripod collar, making it easier to adjust the composition. But they are often big, heavy and expensive. And they require better tripods and heads, and technique.

Short focal length lenses are cheaper, more convenient, smaller and lighter. They are also more suitable for hand held flash photography. But the background can look more cluttered.

If your subject is a dragonfly or a butterfly, your best bet is to find them when they are inactive, such as early morning. In which case ~100mm is fine.

Actually I think with a 100mm Canon macro lens (personally I would buy Canon, but that is my prejudice) and your 400mm F5.6 lens, you are sorted.

The 400mm lens can be used with tubes, but it gets a bit unwieldy. Or a Canon 500D close up lens. They are pricey, but ebay dealers do them at decent prices. I have had universally good experience with ebay and camera equipment. I wish I could say the same of camera shops. Google and you should find good advice regarding 400mm + diopter/tubes. (I've used a Nikon 400mm F5.6 lens + tubes, and I now use a Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO macro lens which goes to 1:3 unaided.)

Here are a few of my photos, to show you the sort of thing you can get:

Macro lens + macro flash:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6572158-md.jpg

200mm micro lens + natural light:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6487568-md.jpg

And a few more:

Photos by Leif Goodwin - photo.net

[kilbey252]

Hi all

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my query. Very helpful and much appreciated.

I've plumped for the Canon 100mm 2.8 and will see how I get on with that (with a view to obtaining a Sigma longer focal length later on....).

One thing it would be quite handy to find out about is how to set up a dual flash rig (I have two speedlite flash units - one digital compatible (master), the other not (slave)) for taking pictures of aquatic insects etc in an aquarium. If anyone knows of any good guides online or in press I'd love to hear.

Thanks again

Dave