Monarch Butterfly - Long lens macro

Messages
1,297
Name
Etienne
Edit My Images
Yes
More from my recent trip to Canada, a Monarch Butterfly that was wandering around the shoreline of the St Lawrence river. I've got some other stuff to process from there but since there's another topic on long lenses for closeups, I thought I'd get these shiny colourful ones processed :)


Taken @ 560mm with the lens on a tripod using 2 legs as a bipod as discussed. There was no extension tube fitted here so it's just the basic magnification with a little cropping and some processing :)

The range definitely helps when it comes to Butterflies and they're big enough to get some decent detail.


1-

Sandy Butterfly by Phal44, on Flickr

2-

Hungry Butterfly by Phal44, on Flickr

3-

Fearsome Butterfly by Phal44, on Flickr
 
Thanks for sharing Etienne they are great... I definitely see the niche that these long lenses fit in.

Now I need to get my Siggy to the detail shown here. :D
 
Some great shots there phal with no. 3 being my obvious winner. I love the framing that you have managed to achieve, not too close as you see to often, but not to far away to still keep the detail.
 
Thanks for sharing Etienne they are great... I definitely see the niche that these long lenses fit in.

Now I need to get my Siggy to the detail shown here. :D

Hah! Well I hope you can't do that otherwise I want a refund :E I see the long lenses as tools for Butterflies/Dragonflies and anything in that size range I guess. Anything smaller and you'll start to struggle I think unless you just want an overall shot to show detail around the subject too.

I just wish I'd had the 25mm tube on there too! At this point I hadn't tried it yet so I didn't want to be testing it whilst I was trying to get shots to keep.
 
Some great shots there phal with no. 3 being my obvious winner. I love the framing that you have managed to achieve, not too close as you see to often, but not to far away to still keep the detail.

Thanks

Yeah I see #3 as the best too but I quite like #1 just for the colours that contrast a bit more. That #3 is about 60-70% of the original shot since I took it at about 3 meters away so I would have liked to be a little closer. Minimum focus distance ideally which is 2 meters on that lens :)
 
No worries :) Is that cropped at all or is that the original shot?
 
No 3 my favourite too love the composition
clear.png
 
Gotta agree, No 3 is a real beauty :):)(y)
 
Etienne

The DOF problem on the Butterfly is still there on 2) and 3)


i do not see the "Butterfly" as being sharpe in any of the images, in fact the reverse
 
Last edited:
It's a crop but I was amazed by detail retained.

Yeah you can get some decent detail but the trouble is you're still left with a lot of space around the subject to fill. It needs to be an interesting enough background or it's tough to compose.

Etienne

The DOF problem on the Butterfly is still there on 2) and 3)


i do not see the "Butterfly" as being sharpe in any of the images, in fact the reverse

Are you expecting the whole butterfly to be in focus? It's going to be hard to get that without some specific circumstances. A smaller aperture will get you more DOF but the background bokeh will suffer. You might be able to fix the bokeh in processing but it's faff! Alternative, if the subject doesn't move then you can try stacking shots later but you'll probably be doing that with a proper macro lens.

These were taken at F5.6 so at minimum focus, the DOF is still pretty thin (F5.6 at 560mm from 2-3 meters away doesn't give a lot). Ultimately, there's similar issues with DOF as you'd get with a macro lens up close. Using a long lens isn't a replacement for a macro lens, it's just a way of getting shots of 'tough to approach' subjects or subjects that are often in places you can't get to (2 meters into a hedge etc).
 
Last edited:
Yeah you can get some decent detail but the trouble is you're still left with a lot of space around the subject to fill. It needs to be an interesting enough background or it's tough to compose.



Are you expecting the whole butterfly to be in focus? It's going to be hard to get that without some specific circumstances. A smaller aperture will get you more DOF but the background bokeh will suffer. You might be able to fix the bokeh in processing but it's faff! Alternative, if the subject doesn't move then you can try stacking shots later but you'll probably be doing that with a proper macro lens.

These were taken at F5.6 so at minimum focus, the DOF is still pretty thin. Ultimately, there's similar issues with DOF as you'd get with a macro lens up close. Using a long lens isn't a replacement for a macro lens, it's just a way of getting shots of 'tough to approach' subjects or subjects that are often in places you can't get to (2 meters into a hedge etc).

I am aware of the DOF effects when using different lens at various apertures and at varying distances

I know what to expect as I extensively use a 300mm f4, a 300mm f2.8, a 105mm f2.8 micro on D700, D7100 and V1 bodies

Basically, I do not see any part of your butterfly "in focus" in images 2 and 3

I do appreciate the DOF at f5.6, I think what I am saying is that your focus maybe slightly "off" in 2 and 3 - could be a number of reasons, which are worth thinking about
 
Last edited:
Well the focus probably wasn't perfect on these moving targets with uber shallow DOF on plants which swayed with the wind but here's some tight tight crops

I tend to aim for the head/eyes if it's facing me so here the head/tongue is in focus.

IMG_9673-2 by Phal44, on Flickr

Here I aimed for the front of the head so areas just in front/behind are in focus and the antennae are sharp.

IMG_9693-2 by Phal44, on Flickr
 
Thanks

from the EXIF I see that you used 1/1000 sec - so the shutter speed would seem to be fine - and you also used a tripod

and ISO 160, so that's good

no-one else has mentioned it - so???

but I still think the focus is (slightly) "off"

did you use single cell spot focus?
 
Last edited:
I used a tripod on two legs like a bipod so there might still be a bit of movement to or from the subject but at 1/1000 I'm not sure how much that would be able to affect it unless it combined with the subject swaying in the wind in the opposite direction that I moved but that's just guesswork.

Here's another shot from the same day/same time and the focus shows a bit better. Maybe those Monarchs are just naturally blurry?




Butterfly of some kind... by Phal44, on Flickr
 
The images look slightly better on Flickr

The image above looks better and it was taken at (the same) f5.6

It looks like in #16 second image the focus is just in front of the Butterfly's head

are you using just one single cell focus on the head?

most of the time I use f8, (on my 300mm lens), with my Dragonfly shots, sometime a higher value

If you take 10 images of the same shot and then look at them at 1:1 in LR, you can usually see which is the "sharpest" …… it is surprising the different there are when using exactly the same settings … and with a wide Av it is easier to see the point of focus

Also I think the nearer you get the more critical focusing is and the more critical it is to set the lens up properly, especially if you use AF with longer lens "close ups"

To give you an example I have just "tested" my Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR micro on my D700 - I get focus confirm from -20 to +3 when adjusting the lens fine tune in the camera - not suggesting that you have a problem with your lens, just that the nearer you get the more critical it seems to be and although we think we are using "accurate" gear, it depends how you define "accurate"
 
Last edited:
Yeah the focus is definitely not perfect everytime when it comes to DOF as thin as this but that's just life. The image above was easier for the camera to focus I guess since it had the broadside of the butterfly to hit whereas the others relied on the single centre point detecting the head and not a tiny by of flower in front or missing slightly and getting a wing/back. I also tend to leave it on AI Focus so it's not as precise as it could be.

Normally I'll pick the sharpest shots but sometimes composition trumps the shot that's perfectly in focus so it's a compromise. I get the same issues on my 100mm F2.8L lens a lot since I don't use a flash so I'm usually relying on the DOF I get from F8-F11 so it's pretty thin.
 
Back
Top