advice on handheld insect photography at medium distances

[nick_baker]

<p>Hi<br /> I am making a tropical trip next month, an aim of which is amateur butterfly photography. I will be taking a Nikon D7000 (if I can get one) and 105VR. I know that I will also need something with more reach because I will not always have close access to subjects, eg because the butterflies are up trees, or otherwise isolated by terrain. I am tryng to acquire images in the 1:2 to 1:4 range. In the past I have tried 80-400VR, 70-300VR, 200f4Ais and CV180f4 for these kinds of shots. None have been completely satisfactory, although whether because some of these lenses are not ideal at their closest focus, or due to the DOF and shutter speed challenges of such photography I am not sure.<br /> For my next trip I am considering the Nikon options below, and would very much appreciate opinions from those with direct experience, with Nikon or which similar equipment from other manufacturers, or links to sites with representative images. <br /> Cost is not a major concern, as I will buy used and resell after the trip. Size and weight ARE major considerations. Handholding will be very desirable. A monopod might be possible but I doubt a tripod is practical.</p>

<p>Option 1: 300mm f4 AFS. Pros: Provides reach, which is the main thing. Should aquire focus quickly. Cons: handholding may be challenging. Is it really top notch at closest focus? I read plenty of good opinions, but do not see many convincing examples on Flickr etc. I see great examples from the 300/2.8, but this is too big a lens for me.<br /> Option 2: 200mm Micronikkor. Pros: IQ cannot be questioned; will be easier to handhold than the 300. Cons: not as much reach, slow to autofocus.<br /> Option 3: Add TC to my 105VR. TC20EIII might be best optically. Nikon does not guarantee AF, but I understand it will probably work in good light.<br /> Anyone with experience with these setups? (I will also post in the Nikon forum)</p>

<p>thanks<br /> Nick</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"handheld insect" - Can't help but ask, are you hand holding the insect or the camera?! ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I'd scrap option 3. At the same magnification, the 105VR can't match the 200 for optical quality when you use the 105 without a TC. Put a TC on that thing, and it's game over. I'm not that worried about the reach on the 200, it seems to stay outside of butterfly "fear circles". At 1:2, you're about 320mm from the front of the lens, at 1:4, close to 800mm.</p>

<p>Option 1 is iffy. The 300mm f4 goes down to 1:3.7, it's barely in your 1:2 to 1:4 magnification range. Although, if you add a 36mm extension tube or a 1.4x TC, you'll get a more comfortable magnification range. And with the TC, insane range. But I won't vouch for image quality.</p>

<p>Buy or rent your lens early and practice manual focus. Butterflies tend to be manual focus subjects, they're complex in shape and unless you manage to be exactly perpendicular to them when they're fully relaxed wings, you'll need to pick focus points and do it quickly. Do you have a local "butterfly house" you can practice at?</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Thanks for the responses!</p>

<p>Dan. ha ha! Sorry about the adjectival stringing. I need an editor. :)<br>

Joseph. I am not sure if your comments are from experience? If so, what equipment would you really recommend? Please bear in mind that I have 35 years experience with butterfly photography, and my desire for reach is not motivated by butterflies' fear factor, but because physical obstacles will often prevent close access in a rainforest environment, therefore my question mostly concerns equipment. <br>

One potential advantage of 105VR + TC2.0III is retaining VR, which might be very significant when handholding in the 200-300mm range. <br>

thanks again.</p>

 

[stemked]

<p>I am not a Nikon user, but option 2 sounds best to me. That's where I do my insect work. Mind you, I'm religious about tripods. If I were to go tripodless I think I'd want a dual flash system, something like thedual Lepp flash system.</p>

[robertshantz]

<p>I use a Canon 50D with the 300 f4 and 1.4x extender, and have been generally pleased with the results. Since most of my photos are taken at f11 or f16, the extender has little or no effect on the image quality. To get a reasonable shutter speed, I normally use ISO 400 if the light is good, and ISO 800 if it's a little cloudy. I would think that your Nikon results would be comparable.<br>

The percentage of keepers isn't good -- mostly since I tend to weave a little and there isn't much depth of field to cover changes in the subject distance. Using my walking stick to brace the camera helps a great deal.<br>

Robert Shantz</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Get your magnification with extension tubes and a teleconverter used in combination. I don't know the Nikon lenses, but one of those you've already mentioned is bound to be stunning. On my Canons, I like working with either my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS or my EF 500mm f/4L IS with a 1.4x TC and/or a 25mm ET. MF if you have to.</p>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I shoot film with manual focus lenses from Canon (FD system) </p>

<p>For my butterfly shots I use a Canon FD 200mm F4 macro with 2X extender, giving me a 400mm F8. I have no problem handholding this. I use 400 ASA film. This combination gives me a good image of butterflies at about 4 to 5 feet distance. At this distance, butterflies and dragonflies are completely unaware you're trying to take the shot and it all gets very easy. I often use a flash. When I flash, I flash TTL at about F22. Using the macro lens allows me to go to magnification 2/1 thus giving me total freedom in images, unlike when I should use a regular 200mm lens.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about autofocus speed. Butterflies sitting on a flower, are subjects that remain still for a long enough time not to need it.</p>

<p>Before I got the rather expensive combo I described here, I used a 100mm macro and a 500mm mirror lens. The 100mm is no good as you have to get much too close. The 500mm mirror was good, since it focused up to 5 feet close, and I made numerous good butterfly shots with it. It's also a very short combination. But the mirror lens does weird things to your unsharp background.</p>

<p>If you can't get a 200mm macro, get a 200mm F4 zoom and a 2X extender. You need the 200mm with doubler instead of 300mm or 400mm to get the 200mm's minimum focusing distance, which is less than the 300 or 400mm's. Get an original Nikon doubler, don't buy crap. </p>

<p>Dirk.</p>

[weaving]

<p>Hi, I have used a Nikon 200mm f4 macro for insect photography for several years. Apart from the brilliant optics the working distance is just about ideal. I often find that there is not enough light to use the small apertures needed for an acceptable depth of field and I regularly use an SB800 flash on an adjustable bracket so that the flash can be aimed from various angles. Once the basic auto focus has been achieved (slowly!), I find the minor adjustments needed for changes in position etc are fast enough. However, I often don't use autofocus, relying on moving the camera towards or away from the subject to focus on a particular area. By the way, the camera I now use is the D300. Hope this helps, and good luck.<br>

Alan Weaving</p>