Posted by Bill Fach on January 27, 2008 at 11:24 PM
The main advantage is that you don't have to flop the camera over to shoot vertically. I also shoot a lot of my floral shots with the lens rotated at odd angles for composition considerations. For macro work I consider it almost indispensable. >=))>
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 28, 2008 at 12:24 AM
One advantage is easier verticals, the other advantage is the lens/camera is better balanced on the tripod. I like them.
Kent in SD
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM
In addition to easy verticals, the better balance that Kent mentions reduces vibration and results in sharper images. Having a longish medium telephoto or zoom hanging off the front of the camera produces and/or magnifies vibrations.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 28, 2008 at 11:35 AM
When you are shooting macro, approaching the 1:1 range, flipping a macro lens using a ball head seriously changes the composition. Also, in all likelihood, the subject will no longer be in the viewfinder. For a fast moving subject such as an insect, you will probably miss the shot altogether.
With the tripod collar, you can change the orientation of the image from vertical to horizontal in literally a second. The composition won't change significantly. Last, insects are far less likely in that time to disappear altogether.
For more normal shooting situations, such as landscapes, it is just plain a lot easier to use a lens collar than flipping the camera on the tripod ballhead/panning head. Given the choice, I wouldn't select a lens without one, for the reasons listed in the above posts by others.
Having said that, there are some common lenses that don't have one. Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L lens does not have a tripod collar. That is where an L-bracket for the camera body comes in handy. It mounts to the camera body. When you want to switch between horizontal and vertical, you remove the camera from the tripod head, reorient the camera, and then remount the camera in the other orientation. A bit slower than using a tripod collar, but you keep the (more or less) same composition and don't have the camera dangling off the side of the tripod.
So should I go with the Canon 100mm Macro or the Sigma 150?
I found the Sigma 150 for 534.00 online, this comes with a lens case, hood, and tripod collar.
The Canon 100 is 434.95+hood(39.95)+tripod collar(136.95)=611.95
The canon also does not come with a soft case, which would probably tack on another 30 bucks.
I really want to shoot insects and stuff, will that extra 5 inches of distance from them really make that much of a difference?
What would you all do?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 28, 2008 at 2:37 PM
As I suggested on your previous question, I'd go for the Sigma 150. Insects in general are very skittish - anything big like a camera lens says "PREDATOR!", unless you move very slowly. In many cases, those extra few inches really do make a difference.
The longer lens also helps with bigger critters, such as frogs and snakes, where you have a hard time approaching closer. The extra focal length certainly won't hurt in these cases, plus background control is a nice plus. There will be less of it spread further out, so it will have more of that "blur" effect to emphasize the subject.
Quality for these two lenses is a non-issue. They are both first rate. Actually, in today's lens market, you would be hard pressed to find a bad currently manufactured macro.
The main downside on the longer lens is if you do a lot of work indoors with one of the APS sized sensors. I have found with the Canon 180 that sometimes I am over-lensed in indoor conservatories, especially with larger butterflies and flowers.
The clincher is the price. Also, I wouldn't worry about getting a soft case for the lens, whichever you buy. Assuming that you store the lens in photo pack, most of the dings and scratches a heavily used lens acquires are due to use and the case won't protect against that.
One last advantage of a tripod collar (in macro photography) is that the long axis of the Arca-Swiss plate for collared lenses usually parallels the lens axis. This gives you a primitive, but effective focusing rail: loosen the clamp and you can move a little fore or back then tighten down again. Sure, it's limited, but it is sometimes a godsend to be able to nudge the plane of focus back without moving the whole tripod.
Pete D. I wish every lens had a collar, but they don't, so I have a removable L-Plate on my (camera) body.
Discussion
7 repliesThanks!
Kent in SD
With the tripod collar, you can change the orientation of the image from vertical to horizontal in literally a second. The composition won't change significantly. Last, insects are far less likely in that time to disappear altogether.
For more normal shooting situations, such as landscapes, it is just plain a lot easier to use a lens collar than flipping the camera on the tripod ballhead/panning head. Given the choice, I wouldn't select a lens without one, for the reasons listed in the above posts by others.
Having said that, there are some common lenses that don't have one. Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L lens does not have a tripod collar. That is where an L-bracket for the camera body comes in handy. It mounts to the camera body. When you want to switch between horizontal and vertical, you remove the camera from the tripod head, reorient the camera, and then remount the camera in the other orientation. A bit slower than using a tripod collar, but you keep the (more or less) same composition and don't have the camera dangling off the side of the tripod.
I found the Sigma 150 for 534.00 online, this comes with a lens case, hood, and tripod collar.
The Canon 100 is 434.95+hood(39.95)+tripod collar(136.95)=611.95
The canon also does not come with a soft case, which would probably tack on another 30 bucks.
I really want to shoot insects and stuff, will that extra 5 inches of distance from them really make that much of a difference?
What would you all do?
The longer lens also helps with bigger critters, such as frogs and snakes, where you have a hard time approaching closer. The extra focal length certainly won't hurt in these cases, plus background control is a nice plus. There will be less of it spread further out, so it will have more of that "blur" effect to emphasize the subject.
Quality for these two lenses is a non-issue. They are both first rate. Actually, in today's lens market, you would be hard pressed to find a bad currently manufactured macro.
The main downside on the longer lens is if you do a lot of work indoors with one of the APS sized sensors. I have found with the Canon 180 that sometimes I am over-lensed in indoor conservatories, especially with larger butterflies and flowers.
The clincher is the price. Also, I wouldn't worry about getting a soft case for the lens, whichever you buy. Assuming that you store the lens in photo pack, most of the dings and scratches a heavily used lens acquires are due to use and the case won't protect against that.
Pete D. I wish every lens had a collar, but they don't, so I have a removable L-Plate on my (camera) body.