Butterflies

I have the Nikon 300mm F4. and 1.4 TC, which I use in the main for shooting

birds. I am widening my interests and have been shooting butterflies,

dragonflies and wildflowers. What significant advantages would there be in

investing in the Nikkor 105mm Micro lens for this type of photography.

Can anybody advise on the closet focusing distance of the above setup,(300mm)

and use of extension tubes. Thanks in anticipation. Stephen

Stephen, take a look here: http://www.simpho.com/

 

Ghislain Simard is impressive as well as instructive.

Some of the finest butterfly photos out there!

 

It is easy to make snaps of sleepy insects. The web is full of it.

Nikon 300 f/4 plus Kenko extension tubes set (3 extension tubes stacked, 12+20+36) allow you to have about 1:1.66 magnification factor (4.0cm / 2.4cm). The distance from the front lens is 72cm. I think that with 1.4TC the focus distance doesn't change and so you should be able to increase the magnification by a 1.4 factor and reach about 1.2 but I'm not sure about that. I have the 1.4TC too but I didn't try, the camera would be so distant from the lens mount!<div></div>

The 105mm Micro would be OK for flowers, but you might want a longer focal length for insects, such as the 200mm Micro. Your 300mm (with or without TC) plus extension tubes would be good, also. Ronnie Gaubert uses a 300mm f/4 AF-S lens with extension for most of his macro shots, and they are excellent. Here are some of his images:

 

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/macro_its_a_small_world

Stephen, the 105 stinks with butterflies and dragons. It is impossible to get that close. I use the 70-200mm f/2.8 with much success. However, the lens you have is even better. Instead of getting a 105mm get yourself some nikon tubes like any of the PK's and/or the PN-11. You should probally get the Kirk tripod collar too.

 

Now if you ever get interested in flowers, spiders and snakes the 105mm is great!

"Now if you ever get interested in flowers, spiders and snakes the 105mm is great!"

 

Shooting venomous snakes with a longer tele than 105mm is even greater and you can do it more often, at least in the wild. Last time I shot such an animal (with a 50mm lens) I promised myself I will bring a 300mm lens next time for certain. :-P

IMHO you're much better off with a close-up lens. I'd wouldn't use extension. Close-up lenses are more comfortable. One advantage is that your lens speed stays the same. I would try this option before buying a (200mm) macro lens. For butterflies I wouldn't use a 105mm. I'd use something longer. I even saw great results with a 80-200/4 and a close-up lens. You must pay attention to yor working distance.

Stephen, you are on the right track. I use a 300mm f 4.0 lens a lot for macro work, especially when the subjects are in the water or when I cannot get close enough to them to use my 200mm macro lens. For many subjects, the use of a a 105mm macro lens requires that you get too close and you scare them away. For some subjects, like frogs and dragon flies, a 200mm lens will drive them away because you are too close.

 

Here is my normal set up. Lens set to manual focus. Add a Nikon ext tube, usually the PN-11 tube, 52mm. Lens mounted to a heavy duty ball head on a tripod using its tripod mounting collar. You mount the camera to the tube. Metering is retained on some Nikon bodies, like the D 200 and above and n90s and above for film cameras. If I need more magnification I add a 1.4x tc to the camera. I use aperture priority mode.

 

To maintain metering you may have to use Kenko ext tubes depending on your Nikon body. There is a risk of vignetting with Kenko tubes. And there is a risk of separation where the lens/camera joins the tube. The risk is minimal, but you need to be careful.

 

Regarding the closest working distance of the 300mm f4.0, it depends on which version of the lens you have, AF or AF-S, and how much extension you add to it. The closest focusing distance for the AF-S version is 4.8 ft w/o adding tubes.

 

Joe Smith

My favorite setups for butterflies (in order of decreasing preference)

 

When shooting handheld:

 

1. Tamron 90mm/f2.8 + Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC (lightweight, adequate WD, no perceivable loss due to TC)

 

2. 55-200 AFS VR + nikon 4T (not quite as sharp as the Tamron rig but very versatile)

 

When shooting from tripod:

 

1. Nikon 200mm/F4 AFD Micro

 

2. Nikon 105mm/f4 AIS Micro + PN-11 (for smallish butterflies and moths)

 

BTW -- your 300mm/f4 will work beautifully with a PN-11 for butterfly photography.

Hey guys, I have had lots of luck shooting Damselflies with 105mm lens. For some reason Damsels will let you get a bit closer?

The 105mm macro, specifically the VR version, is a very fine choice for the kind of subjects that interest you. The focal length is a little short on a film camera but near ideal with a DX DSLR. I've used this lens extensively for two years and find the VR facility allows for successful hand holding for just these kinds of subjects. Other posters have found the VR facility to be of little benefit at close range. I can only say that it works for me, even when working pretty close to the subject, as with the image attached, shot at 1/60sec, hand held. I get more keepers since I switched to this lens, but obviously YMMV.

 

Some subjects will always be elusive and a longer focal length will sometimes be preferable. But many can be approached closely with good field technique, practice and perseverance.<div></div>

"the 105 stinks with butterflies and dragons. It is impossible to get that close"

 

Derek, maybe the 105 isn't the ideal choice, but your statement is simply not true:<div></div>

Ric, my choice of words was not right. If you can get out to your favoite spot at 5:30am on a warm summer day you may find some dragons in an inactive state covered in dew and pretty much unable to fly. If this is you the 105mm is great. Most of us cant get to our spot at that time, I can get there at about 9am. At 9am they are fully active and hard to capture with a short lens. Even if you are patient enough to wait at a perch the 70-200mm has worked a lot better for me. I am sure you could make it work with patience.

 

Your butterfly picture, are you messing with me?

Actually, the southern hawker shot was taken at about 3.00pm on a summer afternoon. The insect had been patrolling along a hedgerow and settled for a few seconds as they sometimes do, allowing me to shoot four frames of which this one was the best. The whole point of the 105 VR is that hand-held photography of living, moving, insect subjects is a real possibility. You don't have to bother with a tripod.

 

To show what I mean here's another shot, apologies if I've posted it previously but it illustrates the point so well. This green-veined white was actively feeding, moving from flower to flower. I wandered along in pursuit and eventually got the shot I wanted. I guess I could have had a static camera set up on this flower and waited, hoping to get lucky, but using field craft to stalk subjects such as this is more satisfying for me. I've seen some great dew-covered insect shots, but its fun to tackle these subjects when they're active and the photos can reveal more of their behaviour - the french photographer previously mentioned in this thread being a fantastic example of this approach.

 

Best wishes to all<div></div>

Malcolm - nice shots.

 

and Derek, i'm not messing with you...