I am not interested in getting into an argument here or in trying to respond to all of things that Jack points out that I didn’t “realize.”
I always thought there was a difference between a debate and an argument.
You made a wonderful review of your "pet" lens on your own thread ... and I tried to show you the respect of not posting my dissenting views on "your" thread (but to create my own).
Giving a nod to your article, I created this thread topic regarding what IMO is the optimal lens for
wildlife macro photography, noting the differences between studio photography.
If you have no rebuttals for what I've said, then just say so.
Again, IMO your own words, on your own eBook, pretty much underscored the differences I was trying to point out.
And, quite frankly, I think it was pretty clear you
didn't realize the differences in your eBook ... which is what left you so "puzzled" and "embarrassed" (your own words) when you attempted to use the CV 125 in an un-controlled situation.
I have been a confirmed naturalist since I was six years old, after I received some mentoring by a wonderful woman naturalist who was a friend of my mom. I know very well what it is like to hunt, stalk, drive great distances, etc. to try to find all kinds specimens to capture for scientific purposes, just for fun, or to photograph. I have contributed very large collections to a major museum, etc.
Would you care to share some of those photos?
So far, all I have seen from you are studio and garden shots.
The subject of this thread is macro lenses for
wildlife photographers.
I myself have done pretty much the same thing as Jack is describing and for many years. I have already pointed out I believe more than once here that there are lenses (auto-focus) that are better for capturing flying insects, like damsel flies, for example. I have also made clear that where I am today with all of this is that photographically “trying” to capture insects no longer interests me. Nada.
If taking photographs of wild arthropods, etc. doesn't interest you, then you should show some respect for the interests of others and not comment at all.
Based on your own words, in your own eBook, I don't think you do have much true wildlife macro experience, as every macro shot I have seen you post is clearly a studio post (or an image taken in a garden). You claim to have all these wildlife macro photos, but so far I haven't seen one. What I have seen are studio shots (and your admission of being perplexed by the
lack of results you got, attempting to shoot single-shot macros on tame public grounds).
Since we're going to discuss LACK of interest, allow me to "go there" as well.
Me, I have ZERO interest in taking
non-challenging photos of flowers.
My mother is a dedicated gardener/florist, with oodles of perfect, highly-colorful flowers that she maintains religiously ... (indoors/outdoors, everywhere) ... that I could set up any day I want, in perfect light, put my equipment in front of it, and take 100-shot stacks in any pre-fabbed position I wanted ... and then call myself a "nature photographer"
But that would put me to sleep quite frankly
And it would also be untrue ...
I am very much what you would call a photographer of the “found,” whatever is there, without having to make extreme efforts to capture or hunt for anything. I like not having to “try” to do anything, and while I respect those who do, I don’t envy them.
Well, that sword cuts both ways: while I enjoy the colors and lines of beautiful flowers like anyone, I have a thousand-times more respect, and appreciation for, those photographers who are able to capture
perfect nature shots ... because they take a thousand-times more effort, dedication, skill, time, and trial-and-error to achieve.
In fact in the photomacrography.net, they distinguish and won't allow studio/stack shots in their nature forum (same as NatGeo won't allow them either), because there is a major difference. The scrutiny for studio stacks is also much higher, because anyone can sit there all day, compose, re-compose, adjust the lighting, stack-away, etc.
You can't do that in nature photography (not usually), so it is MUCH harder to get "the perfect shot" with the light God dealt you in whatever fleeting moment you're given.
And I don’t like to carry a lot of lenses into the field. I travel light, with a small 10x10” messenger bag with diffusers, and the like, and with a tripod, a camera, and most often one lens. Something I will carry a second lens, one that is more of a wide-angle.
Exactly my point ... the Sigma 180 is the perfect
wildlife macro lens ... it needs nothing.
And we agree on the second point, the only other lens I bring is a wide-angle.
I have no trouble photographing all kinds of insects, many even stacking the photos, with a manual-focus lens like the CV125. I have learned patience. In fact, many if not most of the great macro lenses are manual focus and, sad to say, those with autofocus have their own problems in my experience. I have sold off most of them.
I have yet to see a single wildlife shot from you.
(Bees and flies in your backyard don't count IMO.)
I know published, wildlife macro shooters all over the world, and I can't think of a single one of them who uses a MF lens for wildlife.
I wish Jack the best of luck with his new site, which is IMO a field guide site, with the kind of photography we see in field guides. Heaven knows I know what fields guides are like.
Thank you.
And, here again, "the kind of photography"
you do doesn't qualify as "wildlife" photography, by even the loosest definition.
As I mentioned earlier, the site has a community Encounter area (to share photos that are only so-so) and a personal Gallery area (for your best nature shots)
IMO, the following are beautiful,
non-staged, actual
wildlife photos easily on a par with any studio shot you've posted ... taken under FAR "less optimal" conditions:
Honestly, to me, sitting at home taking stack-shots of flowers ... and calling yourself "a nature photographer" ... is like going out in your backyard, shooting fish in your pond, and calling yourself a "hunter"
If there is something that I don’t agree with, and I have made my opinion known, is that a lens like the CV125 has to be labeled a “studio” lens and that a lens like the Sigma 180mm macro is somehow a superior lens. This makes no sense to me because in practice I don’t find it true.
The Sigma
is a superior
all-around lens, for
wildlife macro photography ... and by a country mile.
If you disagree, it is only because you don't actually leave your backyard ...
We use different lenses for different tasks, and we are each sensitive to different things that we appreciate and value in a lens. I have had probably all of the Nikon-adaptable lenses that have autofocus, and don’t feel I needed any of them, except for (again) fast moving insects. I keep one on hand, the VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm.
Yes, exactly, and the Nikkor 105 is #2 on
my list.
It is essentially equal-quality to the Sigma 180mm ... except it lacks
the reach, the
tripod collar, and the
working distance.
I have carried the CV125 over hill and dale for many years, on mountains, into bogs and swamps, etc. As for the urgency in making claims for the Sigma 180mm Macro, I am reminded of a political exchange that we had in the news recently during the Democratic debate, when Hilary Clinton was having endless hassles about her email server. During one debate Bernie Sanders finally said.. “Enough about your damn emails, Hilary.” I feel the same way about the Sigma lens and Jack’s statements about the CV125. This comment is meant to be funny, not aggressive.
That's okay, but remember,
you have sung your praises "over hill-and-dale" of the CV 125 ... while actually only showing photos taken in a studio setting.
The only open review I have seen of your taking this lens anywhere but home, was when you went to "an event" (non-wildlife) and struggled to get the same results you enjoyed at home ... which (again) brings us full circle to
my point I created this thread for 2 purposes, one to sing the praises of what I consider to be "the perfect macro lens," and to draw some hard lines in
the differences in where each excels.
So, let’s drop this and go photograph something. One thing I did get out of all of this is to pull my CV125 off the back shelf and use it. Here is a photograph I took with it this morning in the studio, surrounded outside by snow and ice.
The second photo is the kind of photo I will I will be taking in a few months, also taken with the CV125.
I agree on the "let's take photos" Pepsi challenge.
My D810 and my Sigma are scheduled to arrive Tuesday ... which I believe will make a tremendous difference in the color/clarity of my images over the 7D ... and I will be posting nature shots with them by next weekend.
As for your shots, the studio shot is gorgeous (as it should be where you get to control everything, and take as many stacks as you like).
The other shot is average, and (again) for some reason it looks like something was lost in the upload.
“Every one to his own taste, said the old lady as she kissed the cow.”
Agreed again.
I prefer women women with curves
Jack