macro or tele lens for shooting insects?

For shooting insects, is a macro lens or a tele lens more useful? Shooting macro pics is a lot of fun if you can get near to the insect, but the bug may not like you and go away. It's hard to steady the camera in a macro shooting distance too. A tripod is too cumbersome in this situation. Everything may be too late before the bug runs away. A tele lens gives a longer working distance, but I'll have to sacrifice the true macro distance range. May I get your advice in shooting insects and picking a proper lens? Is a 100mm macro plus a high magnification tele lens (like the 300mm f/4) a good combo?

Get the combined benefits of a macro and a telephoto lens by using extension tubes with a telephoto lens. The length of the telephoto gives you enough working distance that allow you to fill the frame without scaring the insect away (sometimes). The extension tubes allow you to focus close enough that you can fill the frame.

My preferred combination for subjects like butterflies is a Sigma 50-500 with one or more Kenko extension tubes. I also use a tripod whenever possible. Set up the tripod on a location where you can get a shot of a place where the insect will land, often a flower of moisture source. Pre-focus and wait for the insect to return. Usually you can get much sharper and better composed shots this way than by trying to stalk insects with a hand held camera.

WIth a zoom lens and extension tubes, you will find that you can use the zoom ring for gross focusing, because of the limited focus range available when there are extension tubes between camera and lens. Only fine focusing is doen with AF or the manual focus ring. I find manual focus more useful than AF for most macro shots.

My 24-70 Sigma with cheapo ebay "macro" filters got me this:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I got good results with my 70-200 f/4 and extension tubes. Takes a lot of practice though, it's quite hard to get the focus right and prevent shake etc.

ScottE wrote in post #1998012
Get the combined benefits of a macro and a telephoto lens by using extension tubes with a telephoto lens. The length of the telephoto gives you enough working distance that allow you to fill the frame without scaring the insect away (sometimes). The extension tubes allow you to focus close enough that you can fill the frame.

or you can take the alternate approach, which is a macro lens with a teleconverter and possibly an extension tube as well. I have seen some really good results from a 100mm macro, a 25mm extension tube, and a 1.4x or 2x t-con

Best combination for butterflies, dragonflies = 300/4 L IS, 25mm ext. tube, maybe 1.4x, maybe monopod. I use ISO 400, run it through Neat Image later. Working distances of 3' to 6' = great!

There is no right or wrong. I use my 100-400 with and without extention tubes quite often for large insects like butterflies. I also use a 100mm and 180mm macro lens with and without tubes, with and without the Canon 500D closeup lens, with and without teleconverters with and without tripods and monopods and with and without speedlights. Every combination works better in certain situations.

genewch,
I personally would take a macro lens anyday over any of my zooms or primes for shooting insects. I have tried a number of times with tubes and my 100-400L but the macro beats it hands down (to my eyes). The smaller the insect even more the macro is needed to my hands/eyes. To truly get macro (1:1, lifesize) out of a lens like the 300L you would need quite alot of extension. Oh and a flash makes many more possible. Now a 100mm macro and (Kenko, why pay more for air? ) tubes that opens many more doors, like this one

Deer Fly

I use my Sigma without and with extension tubes. At 200 to 300 mm, macro mode, I can stay at a confortable distance from the insects.

Alb

angryhampster wrote in post #1998030
My 24-70 Sigma with cheapo ebay "macro" filters got me this:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

thats nice...what filter was that

It seems that a macro and a tele zoom plus extension tubes have their own advantages. For such a tiny subject as an insect, is a macro lens less favourable because of the shorter working distance than a tele lens? Correct me if I'm getting wrong. How to solve the camera shake problem with a more versatile solution than a tripod?

genewch wrote in post #1997929
For shooting insects, is a macro lens or a tele lens more useful? Shooting macro pics is a lot of fun if you can get near to the insect, but the bug may not like you and go away. It's hard to steady the camera in a macro shooting distance too. A tripod is too cumbersome in this situation. Everything may be too late before the bug runs away. A tele lens gives a longer working distance, but I'll have to sacrifice the true macro distance range. May I get your advice in shooting insects and picking a proper lens? Is a 100mm macro plus a high magnification tele lens (like the 300mm f/4) a good combo?

I use the 300/f4 + tubes for big insects like dragons and damsels where you only need 0.5 life size, perhaps some butterflies but most insects you will need a macro lens, I use the 100mm f2.8 Macro USM or MP-E 65mm depending on if I need under or over life size magnification. For over life size you will also need a flash, I use the MT-24EX.

I'm afraid I can't afford a Canon ring flash. Does Sigma ring flash perform good enough?

For very short shooting distance in using a macro lens, I can feel my camera shake. What can help me to prevent shake? Does a monopod help?

genewch wrote in post #2007814
I'm afraid I can't afford a Canon ring flash. Does Sigma ring flash perform good enough?

For very short shooting distance in using a macro lens, I can feel my camera shake. What can help me to prevent shake? Does a monopod help?

I don't know about the sigma, try a post in the macro section someone there might use it, I don't know if it is ETTL2 compatible. The canon twin flash has a number of advantages over the canon ring flash but is very expensive.

Take it from me having a good dedicated macro flash is a life saver. In my film system I used to have to use manual ordinary flashes on a bracket and figure in the effective apatures along with everything else.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2009269
I don't know about the sigma, try a post in the macro section someone there might use it, I don't know if it is ETTL2 compatible. The canon twin flash has a number of advantages over the canon ring flash but is very expensive.

Take it from me having a good dedicated macro flash is a life saver. In my film system I used to have to use manual ordinary flashes on a bracket and figure in the effective apatures along with everything else.

Do you use a tripod or monopod to take insect macro pics? I think some kind of support is important to me because I'm shakey at a short shooting distance. My breath may even blow the bug away.