Canon Christmas present?

[Rogerdodge]

Gary
I apologise - I took your comment too literally!
We obviously agree (see my Morrris Minor comment) as usual.

Cheers

[Jack Harrison]

Hope you aren't trying to buy from e-bay. Just got this in response to an order:

"As Christmas is approaching, the postal service will be very busy recently."

Jack

[JohnR]

The cheap lens is exactly that. Its a smokescreen for the Canon 180 macro and the Canon 100-400 IS so that I can take pictures at Christmas of mother-in-law, the dog and SWMBO who theoretically is paying for the camera. You don't think that I would flash phallic lenses in public - there is probably a law against it.
Anyway I shall continue to use my Canon SX20 for happy snaps and for recording butterflies on my trips round the farm. I now have permission to extend my survey over another farm right up to the Surrey/Sussex border. This gives me a playground of 4 sq. km. and I find it easier just to snap the butterflies as I walk round and then sort them out on the screen in the evening as I enter the data.

By the way the 7D arrived to-day with an invoiced price of £979.00

[JohnR]

The two lenses arrived via the postman this morning.

I bought them on the grey market on-line from HDEW http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk . I phoned the orders through and was answered by helpful, pleasant sounding people in their office in Wallington, Surrey. Whilst they had the 7D camera and the 18-55 lens in stock, they had to order the 180 macro lens, which took about a week to arrive with me. I paid:
Canon 7D £979
EF-S F/3.5-5.6 18-55 IS lens £85
180mm F3.5L Macro USM lens £929

The owner waived the £5 delivery charge !

I shall certainly use them again for the Canon 100-400 zoom unless I find a suitable second-hand one in the new year.

Added Later

The more I think about it and the more I stare at it, I am going to swap the EF-S F/3.5-5.6 18-55 for the EF 24-105/4L IS USM

[GOLDENORFE]

you will enjoy practising with that lot!

good price on the 180

no mpe-65 then!

phil

[JohnR]

no mpe-65 then!
phil

No, no, please don't tempt me. My credit card bill came in yesterday which meant that I could order the EF 100-400L USM IS today 'coz I won't have to pay 'till February (and I got it for a grand).

[GOLDENORFE]

superb! guess that will be great for long shots! add extension tubes for extra magnification at longer shooting distance.
i use a 12mm ex tube on my 70-300 for butterflys/dragons .

phil

[Dave McCormick]

Hi John, The 7D is a great camera, perfect for macro work. Any macro lens will do the job, I personally prefer a longer lens, 150 -180mm, which gives a greater working distance from the subject.

Thats if you reguard the Tamron 18-200mm IF Macro lens a macro lens, really its basically not great for much other than a general lens. I have it but barely use it for more than general landscape shots as for insect photography the quality just isn't there. It will do the job, but not if you want decent quality shots.

Good luck with your new camera John, look forward to those butterfy shots next year

[Gruditch]

Wires crossed Dave, I was only talking about Macro lenses, ( prime lenses ) not cheap zooms that claim to be a macro. Been there tried it, your right they are awful for macro work.

Regards Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

Wires crossed Dave, I was only talking about Macro lenses, ( prime lenses ) not cheap zooms that claim to be a macro. Been there tried it, your right they are awful for macro work.

I see what you mean now, cheap macros are not great.

[FISHiEE]

They're not bad for a beginner lens. My first ever lens was a £180(new) sigma 70-300 macro which was 1:2 at about 1.5m I think. After a couple of years I added a 1:1 element to the front for about £30 which gave me 1:1 at around 1m which, was pretty handy as my field skills wouldn't have been so hot back then and I'd probably have got no shots, flogged the camera and stuck to fishing!

I still have some shots from them now that I think I'd be hard pushed to better with my current sigma 150 or canon 100-400 for distance.

Admittedly with that old 70-300 it was definitely tripod only for macro and very good light for distance. It sucked on a monopod with no tripod collar and having to shoot around F16+ for depth of field meant great shots are only achievable in quite limited situations

[Gruditch]

Admittedly with that old 70-300 it was definitely tripod only for macro and very good light for distance. It sucked on a monopod with no tripod collar and having to shoot around F16+ for depth of field meant great shots are only achievable in quite limited situations

Not a great advert John. But at least 70-300mm is a decent focal length. I didn't listen to the advise I was given, and bought the Sigma 28-300 macro. Silly focal length, I realise it now. On the positive side, I sold it at very little loss to someone I don't particularly like, and he hatted it


Regards Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

LOL

I actually sold mine many years later for around £100 I recall. Not much less than I got for the 10D that I paid over a grand for. It's a shame cameras don't hold their value like lenses

It's definitely best to avoid lenses with a big zoom range as they are always a big compromise. Having said that I used a Nikon D80 with a Nikon 18-200( - but it was the guide's not mine) on a fishing trip in Africa once and was mighty impressed by its capabilities. So much flexibility with no need to change lenses whereas I had to use two lenses (17-40 and the quite terrible 28-135 - which I also sold to someone I don't like!) for the same application. The D80 images were noisy as hell, but that's another story!

I'm not brave enough to try the canon 18-200!

[JohnR]

The next question ought to be what sturdy, lightweight tripod do people recommend? Having tried to use a tripod when stalking with a rifle I settled for long thumb stick, which is easy to carry and one which I can rest my rifle and still get a reasonable group at 200 yards - so would a monopod suffice because the butterfly inevitably flits off to the opposite end of the bramble bush making a two fingered gesture as it goes, so by the time I fold the legs of a tripod and follow it, it has returned to where we started the game of musical chairs.

[FISHiEE]

Definitely I would choose a monopod over a tripod for the majority of situations. I cary both a tripod and a monopod at all times but the tripod only gets used when the butterflies are particularly inactive. I would think it almost hopeless with a tripod when the butterflies are active. You'll be wanting to get within 0.5m for best results and the tripod legs will be a pain both to adjust (only one adjustment with a monopod) and for knocking the plant the butterfly will be on when that close. Monopods are not as stable as a tripod, but are a hundred times more flexible for an active subject.

The advantage the sigma 70-300 had was I could use a tripod a good distance away so the legs didn't get in the way.

[Gruditch]

I would, no surprise to Fishiee, recommend a tripod. For a top quality lightweight tripod, look no further than the Manfrotto 190CXPRO4, ask Pete, Lisa or Rogerdodge. I find a tripod more versatile than a monopod, obviously you get more stability, but without the legs splayed you can use it monopod style anyway.

Choosing an head is another contentious issue BTW.

Regards Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I have tried using a tripod monopod style when the camera was already on the tripod, but it's not as good as a monopod in that mode. But maybe that's due to the head I use.

I use a Velbon Sherpa 635 CF tripod with a splittable centre column which I prefer to the manfortto one piece flip over jobby. I usually leave the long section of the column detatched as I usually need to get low for butterflies. The Manfrotto is a bit shorter and a bit lighter which is handy for travel though. The leg angle adjustment seems a bit smoother than my Velbon, but then it might just be because they are new ones I have played with in the shops.

I had a play with the relatively new 324 and 327 joystick heads by manfrotto and would be very tempted by one of those which gives very quick movement in all 3 axis from a single control. I still use the very cheap PH-157Q pan and tilt head that came with it which is intended for birding, but gives me the 2 most important direction adjustments from a single control. Portrait/Landscape isn't generally something I need to switch between at speed but having now played with the new Manfrotto heads, and have seen they are actually a bit shorter then my current head I am tempted by those. The older joystick heads didn't appear to have the ability to tilt forwards which made them a bit useless for butterflies. The new ones now can do that

[FISHiEE]

Oh, and I should add I don't fold the legs on the tripod when I'm moving about generally. Wastes too much time folding and unfolding.

[Paul Wetton]

If you're thinking of a Manfrotto head it won't go on the Velbon tripod without an adapter of some sort as Manfrotto use something like a 3/4" screw whereas Velbon use only a 1/4" fitting. You possibly knew this and had in mind a whole new set up.

[FISHiEE]

I have a manfrotto 234RC head for my manfrotto Monopod and that has the same size thread as my velvon head and tripod. My Manfrotto monopod has a fancy fitting with a narrow central thread with another spring loaded thread on the outside. The narrower thread matches all my other gear. Are you saying the larger size is used by the 324/327?

The velbon tripod thread seems to be removable and reversible with the other end looking like the wider shaft diameter of the Manfroto monopod so maybe that's what you do if you have a manfrotto head...