From the back garden a few weeks ago. 20D, Sigma 150mm, Monopod, ISO 200, 1/500, F/5.6 C & C as always welcome.
Posted by Andy Astbury on April 26, 2007 at 3:12 AM
Hi Michael - nice image
Only slight nit is critical focus seems to be on the legs and leaf just viewers side of the subject, at 5.6 you've not got enough DoF at macro distances to pull the wings in, so they are a tad on the soft side.
But it is a very nice image all the same with really nice comp
A nice close-up with the butterfly a good size in the frame and a good proportion of butterfly and folliage.A well handled exposure with lots of detail in the butterfly but without letting the brighter coloured leaves go unneccesarily bright.
To offer a suggestion for improvement I'd have to agree with Andy's suggestion that a little more depth of field would be ideal to get those wings critically sharp.
Perhaps dropping to 1/250 sec @ f8 would have done the trick.
Cheers for the advice guys. You are spot on, a slightly bigger DoF would probably have done it. I'm curious to know if anyone else is using the Sigma 150mm 20D combination and what quality of results they are getting. Is anyone using the Canon 180mm L?
Michael,
Whilst I havn't personally used either of the lenses you mention,I have certainly read dozens of accounts from photographers who do reguarly use both models.
General opinion indicates they are both outstanding lenses capable of top class results.
The Sigma is hugely popular,perhaps even more so than the Canon 180mm,mainly due to it's considerably cheaper price tag and the apparantly virtually identical optical quality.
Both lenses will perform superbly on a Canon 20D and in some cases, IMHO, a 20D would even be preferable to a higher resolution full frame camera such as the 5D or 1Ds models,for the benefits of a slightly bigger subject/image size at a more favourable,and often essential,working distance,at least with difficult to approach insects anyway.
I wouldn't hesitate in buying the Sigma 150mm macro lens based on the images and reviews I've read,however if money wasn't an issue then if I'm honest I'd probably go for the Canon,mainly due to the compatibility with the Canon extenders,which could be useful at times for increased magnification and/or extra working distance.
EDIT I assumed you were considering getting one of these models,however I've just seen from your details above that you already own one .
Why do you ask,are you not getting as good as results you hoped for?
It is very much to do with reults. I've a number of macro lenses and a fairly good macro setup flashwise. I started out with a Sigma 70-300mm and no ring flash and got the max out of that, then progressed to a Sigma 105mm. A very good lens, but not the easiest to use with a Canon Ring Flash due to lack of internal focusing. Finally I got to the 150mm and it is an excellent lenses and works very well with the Canon MR-14ex ring flash and also with two 420ex's on a wireless system. . However, I feel I'm am just a pixel or two out on the sharpeness when I compare my results with other photographers work. I also have the EF-S 60mm. It is super sharp and actually a brillant portrait lens. In fact some find it a little too sharp (LOL). The only 'normal' (i.e 1:1) macro lenses I haven't used is the 180mm L. The other thing here is that sharpness etc. may be down to workflow and processing as well.
I guess the only way to be 100% certain if your particular lens is capable of producing the results is to run some controlled tests (if you havn't already),using a completely still object, in a still enviroment (i.e. indoors), with the camera solidly mounted on a good quality tripod,lock the mirror up,use a remote release,shoot at your camera's lowest iso.Difuse indoor light from a window works well (no matter how low the light levels are).Direct flash whether from a ring-flash or a couple of flashguns, wouldn't always give you the sharpest looking results in a test like this,at least not unless they were set up well,and slightly off of the lens' axis to allow some modeling and shadow relief.I'd run a test at all apertures from maximum to minimum and then compare the results either after they've been sharpened or before.
I don't know if your using Breezebrowser but this has a superb 'Compare Image' feature that allows you to scrutinize several shots together using varying magnifications from 25% right up to 400%,I find this very useful for assesing lens test results.Failing that,comparing them in Photoshop would be just as easy.
As boring as these tests can sometimes be at least you know for sure whether it's the lens or user error at fault.
On the other hand it could well be down to workflow and processing,it's hard to tell without seeing the actual raw files straight out of camera,although saying that,your butterfly image above looks to be very well processed,and the leaf in particular certainly looks very sharp,as already mentioned it's just a slight increase in depth of field that would keep the whole of the butterfly critically sharp.
Best bet is to continue posting your images and perhaps ask for specific information on what others think regarding sharpness/quality,etc.Although it's very hard to accurately evaluate a small 720pxl jpeg,sometimes it's possible to identify any possible problems,whether,camera shake,subject movement,insufficient sharpening,flat lighting,inaccurate focuus,etc.etc.
Certainly from all the favourable reviews on the Sigma lens I'd be suprised if changing to the Canon 180mm would make much difference in the quality of the results,then again perhaps you've been unfortunate in getting a less than perfect example of the Sigma 150mm,there certainly seem to be plenty of lens quality controls issues around,not only with Sigma,but with top end Cannon lenses too.
Probabily havn't mentioned anything you didn't already know,but hope you get to the bottom of it anyway.
I think as the old addage goes "A bad workman quarrels with his tools". I'll run some tests. But I think the problem is that I am not using mirror lock up
I have added a shot from yesterday that gives a good idea of the lens capacity.
Cheers for your time, Michael John
Discussion
8 repliesOnly slight nit is critical focus seems to be on the legs and leaf just viewers side of the subject, at 5.6 you've not got enough DoF at macro distances to pull the wings in, so they are a tad on the soft side.
But it is a very nice image all the same with really nice comp
Best Regards
Andy
To offer a suggestion for improvement I'd have to agree with Andy's suggestion that a little more depth of field would be ideal to get those wings critically sharp.
Perhaps dropping to 1/250 sec @ f8 would have done the trick.
Whilst I havn't personally used either of the lenses you mention,I have certainly read dozens of accounts from photographers who do reguarly use both models.
General opinion indicates they are both outstanding lenses capable of top class results.
The Sigma is hugely popular,perhaps even more so than the Canon 180mm,mainly due to it's considerably cheaper price tag and the apparantly virtually identical optical quality.
Both lenses will perform superbly on a Canon 20D and in some cases, IMHO, a 20D would even be preferable to a higher resolution full frame camera such as the 5D or 1Ds models,for the benefits of a slightly bigger subject/image size at a more favourable,and often essential,working distance,at least with difficult to approach insects anyway.
I wouldn't hesitate in buying the Sigma 150mm macro lens based on the images and reviews I've read,however if money wasn't an issue then if I'm honest I'd probably go for the Canon,mainly due to the compatibility with the Canon extenders,which could be useful at times for increased magnification and/or extra working distance.
EDIT I assumed you were considering getting one of these models,however I've just seen from your details above that you already own one
Why do you ask,are you not getting as good as results you hoped for?
It is very much to do with reults. I've a number of macro lenses and a fairly good macro setup flashwise. I started out with a Sigma 70-300mm and no ring flash and got the max out of that, then progressed to a Sigma 105mm. A very good lens, but not the easiest to use with a Canon Ring Flash due to lack of internal focusing. Finally I got to the 150mm and it is an excellent lenses and works very well with the Canon MR-14ex ring flash and also with two 420ex's on a wireless system. . However, I feel I'm am just a pixel or two out on the sharpeness when I compare my results with other photographers work. I also have the EF-S 60mm. It is super sharp and actually a brillant portrait lens. In fact some find it a little too sharp (LOL). The only 'normal' (i.e 1:1) macro lenses I haven't used is the 180mm L. The other thing here is that sharpness etc. may be down to workflow and processing as well.
Cheers MJ
I guess the only way to be 100% certain if your particular lens is capable of producing the results is to run some controlled tests (if you havn't already),using a completely still object, in a still enviroment (i.e. indoors), with the camera solidly mounted on a good quality tripod,lock the mirror up,use a remote release,shoot at your camera's lowest iso.Difuse indoor light from a window works well (no matter how low the light levels are).Direct flash whether from a ring-flash or a couple of flashguns, wouldn't always give you the sharpest looking results in a test like this,at least not unless they were set up well,and slightly off of the lens' axis to allow some modeling and shadow relief.I'd run a test at all apertures from maximum to minimum and then compare the results either after they've been sharpened or before.
I don't know if your using Breezebrowser but this has a superb 'Compare Image' feature that allows you to scrutinize several shots together using varying magnifications from 25% right up to 400%,I find this very useful for assesing lens test results.Failing that,comparing them in Photoshop would be just as easy.
As boring as these tests can sometimes be at least you know for sure whether it's the lens or user error at fault.
On the other hand it could well be down to workflow and processing,it's hard to tell without seeing the actual raw files straight out of camera,although saying that,your butterfly image above looks to be very well processed,and the leaf in particular certainly looks very sharp,as already mentioned it's just a slight increase in depth of field that would keep the whole of the butterfly critically sharp.
Best bet is to continue posting your images and perhaps ask for specific information on what others think regarding sharpness/quality,etc.Although it's very hard to accurately evaluate a small 720pxl jpeg,sometimes it's possible to identify any possible problems,whether,camera shake,subject movement,insufficient sharpening,flat lighting,inaccurate focuus,etc.etc.
Certainly from all the favourable reviews on the Sigma lens I'd be suprised if changing to the Canon 180mm would make much difference in the quality of the results,then again perhaps you've been unfortunate in getting a less than perfect example of the Sigma 150mm,there certainly seem to be plenty of lens quality controls issues around,not only with Sigma,but with top end Cannon lenses too.
Probabily havn't mentioned anything you didn't already know,but hope you get to the bottom of it anyway.
I think as the old addage goes "A bad workman quarrels with his tools". I'll run some tests. But I think the problem is that I am not using mirror lock up
I have added a shot from yesterday that gives a good idea of the lens capacity.
Cheers for your time, Michael John