Scottes
26th of August 2004 (Thu), 20:40
I went out after work for more dragonflies, but this time I brought the Sigma 105mm Macro. I did bring the 100-400 L just in case there were some birds around, but ended up leaving it in the car because the case's strap was too short and it was damned uncomfortable to carry.
Well I paid the price for that, as I had excellent shots at a couple Great Blue Herons, and I would have had to zoom out - which means that I probably would have mucked up the shots because I can never seem to remember to zoom out when I have the 100-400.
So I stuck to hunting dragonflies.
Well, the Sigma has a much shorter reach than the 100-400. Go figure, huh? I missed many shots because of the short working distance of the Sigma. I began to realize that (today at least) the dragonflies had a "safe distance" of about 4 feet which means that I'm doing "macro" at about 1:4 or 1:5. That's completely inadequate. :)
So I may have talked myself into getting the Canon 180mm Macro today. Then again, I may just have butterflies and dragonflies on the brain. I *do* love shooting butterflies, and it's common for me to do so since I have 3 butterfly houses within 90 minutes of the house. One of these days I'm going to try for butterflies in the wild, and then I'm *really* gonna want the 180mm Macro.
Also, I have a strong case of L-Desire right now, and can't afford the 600mm L. :(
Back to the lenses... I had been using the 100-400 L with a 36mm tube for closer focusing and some magnification. But that combo hunts quite a bit because of the light loss from the tube combined with the f/5.6 of the lens at 400mm. I was also thinking that the combo was causing some contrast issues that I didn't like. So I had to take the Sigma to compare.
Well the Sigma hunts WAY more. To a ridiculous extent. AF is just about useless on this lens. I ended up shutting off the AF and manually focused - and then fine-focused by leaning forward or back. This is probably the preferred way to do macro shots anyway, and I've used this technique on butterflies and even some flowers down to 1:1. (1:1 handheld ain't bad at all.)
As to the contrast, I'd say that there's no difference between the 100-400/tube versus the Sigma. I think it's really because this place is quite dull with a lot of dead, dying, or colorless vegetation. The vegetation primarily is one color - tan or brown or dark tan. I hate brown, and tan is not far behind.
I do love the excellent optics and build quality of this Sigma, but the short working distance and lack of autofocus are killers. This lens may show up in the Marketplace soon - once I get and test the Canon 180mm, if that actually happens.
So next time - which may be a while because I'm tired of shooting dragonflies - I'm taking the 100-400 with a 20mm tube and I may even try the 500D. That is, if I don't have the Canon 180mm Macro by then. :)
Enough drivel! Pictures....
Here's one of the little red dudes I managed to mess up the other day. Not the greatest image, but I kinda like the leading lines - though I wish the sun hadn't been hitting that green bud so hard. But I was really close to get this guy, which took a bit. I was "stalking" him from 5 feet away until I could get the lens about a foot and a half away from him. I'll take it.
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9353.jpg
I definitely underexposed this one, but I ended up liking it this way. I think it looks pretty cool with all the reeds curving around. Strange that I like this even though I didn't zoom in real close. I'm known to zoom in a bit. :)
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9361.jpg
Did I mention that I like to zoom in? Same dude, as close as I could get. I loved that reed curling up towards his tummy.
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9366.jpg
Well I paid the price for that, as I had excellent shots at a couple Great Blue Herons, and I would have had to zoom out - which means that I probably would have mucked up the shots because I can never seem to remember to zoom out when I have the 100-400.
So I stuck to hunting dragonflies.
Well, the Sigma has a much shorter reach than the 100-400. Go figure, huh? I missed many shots because of the short working distance of the Sigma. I began to realize that (today at least) the dragonflies had a "safe distance" of about 4 feet which means that I'm doing "macro" at about 1:4 or 1:5. That's completely inadequate. :)
So I may have talked myself into getting the Canon 180mm Macro today. Then again, I may just have butterflies and dragonflies on the brain. I *do* love shooting butterflies, and it's common for me to do so since I have 3 butterfly houses within 90 minutes of the house. One of these days I'm going to try for butterflies in the wild, and then I'm *really* gonna want the 180mm Macro.
Also, I have a strong case of L-Desire right now, and can't afford the 600mm L. :(
Back to the lenses... I had been using the 100-400 L with a 36mm tube for closer focusing and some magnification. But that combo hunts quite a bit because of the light loss from the tube combined with the f/5.6 of the lens at 400mm. I was also thinking that the combo was causing some contrast issues that I didn't like. So I had to take the Sigma to compare.
Well the Sigma hunts WAY more. To a ridiculous extent. AF is just about useless on this lens. I ended up shutting off the AF and manually focused - and then fine-focused by leaning forward or back. This is probably the preferred way to do macro shots anyway, and I've used this technique on butterflies and even some flowers down to 1:1. (1:1 handheld ain't bad at all.)
As to the contrast, I'd say that there's no difference between the 100-400/tube versus the Sigma. I think it's really because this place is quite dull with a lot of dead, dying, or colorless vegetation. The vegetation primarily is one color - tan or brown or dark tan. I hate brown, and tan is not far behind.
I do love the excellent optics and build quality of this Sigma, but the short working distance and lack of autofocus are killers. This lens may show up in the Marketplace soon - once I get and test the Canon 180mm, if that actually happens.
So next time - which may be a while because I'm tired of shooting dragonflies - I'm taking the 100-400 with a 20mm tube and I may even try the 500D. That is, if I don't have the Canon 180mm Macro by then. :)
Enough drivel! Pictures....
Here's one of the little red dudes I managed to mess up the other day. Not the greatest image, but I kinda like the leading lines - though I wish the sun hadn't been hitting that green bud so hard. But I was really close to get this guy, which took a bit. I was "stalking" him from 5 feet away until I could get the lens about a foot and a half away from him. I'll take it.
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9353.jpg
I definitely underexposed this one, but I ended up liking it this way. I think it looks pretty cool with all the reeds curving around. Strange that I like this even though I didn't zoom in real close. I'm known to zoom in a bit. :)
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9361.jpg
Did I mention that I like to zoom in? Same dude, as close as I could get. I loved that reed curling up towards his tummy.
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Dragonfly_9366.jpg