Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro Lens for a Sony Alpha350?

Go to last post
C

Camera05

Member
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am needing recommendations for a good, but decent priced, macro lens for the Alpha350--something in the $300 to $400 range. I realize that it is better to manually focus macro work, but I would prefer something that can auto focus--do they make that in a 1:1 macro? Also, I think it should be 60mm. Is the focal length important in macro work? I will be using the camera to take images of small electrical terminal and other auto parts for catalogue and internet use.
 
I love the Tamron 90. It's a little longer than 60, but very sharp and has nice manual focus. And it's in the ballpark, pricewise.
--
lbick
Sony alpha-700
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lbick
 
are both in the $400 range. Either one is excellent. I own the Sigma and I find it very sharp. Others rave about the Tamron.

The focal length is more dependent on what you're trying to shoot. If live things like insects, the longer focal lenth may be better as you can get 1:1 from further away. 1:1 on the Sigma is pretty close to the front of the lens (about 3") since the lens extends when focusing.
--

 
Just got me a 100mm Sony and LOVE this thing to death..... way better than the tamron 90mm





are two from this afternoon on my A300.

My review is on dyxum and I've been using this lens all week (flickr for more macros).
--
http://www.flickr.com/dr4gon
 
Looks real nice dr4gon. I looked at some of your work on Flickr: very impressive. I'm new to macro work. I will be taking images of small auto parts. Do you think the 100mm Sony would be suited for that kind of work? How close can I get to the object with it? How far away?
 
You can get pretty close, not as close as the Tamron though, which is advantageous for plants/insects since you can stand further back and still achieve the same magnification.

If you want to get really close (or have to get really close) then a 50mm macro would suit you better. It has more DOF and its MFD is a lot closer. It's 6 inches versus 2" for the 100mm and 50mm to achieve 1:1

--
http://www.flickr.com/dr4gon
 
macro/tele P&S with achromats and front tc to get these, : )... Hand held with on board flash. I am still trying to duplicate with my DSLR setup w/o much success because I am cheap, lol.
enjoy,
gil









directory link here:

http://art4less.smugmug.com/gallery/2791191_wrqjQ#P-1-20

--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.
 
Camera05 said:
Looks real nice dr4gon. I looked at some of your work on Flickr: very
impressive. I'm new to macro work. I will be taking images of small
auto parts. Do you think the 100mm Sony would be suited for that kind
of work? How close can I get to the object with it? How far away?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by close. Close as in magnification both will be about the same at 1:1. That is a object about 1" long will fill the frame at closest focus. Of course you can focus from that close all the way out to infinity with either lens.

If, on the other hand, by close you mean working distance from the subject the 50mm will be a lot closer to the subject than the 100mm. At 1:1 the 50mm will be close enough that at times it will interfere with lighting more than the 100mm will.

I'm sure only some of your auto parts will need 1:1, so you do need to think about how large the biggest ones will be too.

If you are going to be shooting parts using a copy stand the Sony 50mm f2.8 will be a better match to the copy stand. The 100mm would at times need more distance than the copy stand would provide.

If you have the room to work, the 100mm is generally the best first macro lens choice as a greater variety of stuff will work with it, including shy or dangerous animals. On the other hand if your working room is limited then the 50mm may be a better choice.

Walt
 
DOF is determined by magnification, not focal length.

This sounds counter-intuitive, but in non-macro circumstances the calculations involving focal length and distance to subject are just used to calculate magnification, which is the crucial factor in calculating DOF.

If you want a subject reproduced at, say, 1:1, then any focal length macro will offer the same DOF. The differences are in working distance and angle of view.

If you need to be 4" away from a given subject to get the image you need with a 50mm lens, the same subject size will allow you 8" away with a 100mm and 16" away with a 200mm macro lens. This makes a big difference with insects and bugs that may be spooked as you approach, and it makes practical differences to your lighting setup.

The angle of view is also different - a 50mm will include a wider background than a 100mm. This may bot be an issue for you if the components you are photographing are on PCBs or on a table, but if you are after insects in the wild for instance, the longer the focal length the easier it is to avoid distracting backgrounds.

--
Cheers,

Dave
http://purpledog.smugmug.com

'Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur'
 
Dave Farmer said:
DOF is determined by magnification, not focal length.

This sounds counter-intuitive, but in non-macro circumstances the
calculations involving focal length and distance to subject are just
used to calculate magnification, which is the crucial factor in
calculating DOF.

If you want a subject reproduced at, say, 1:1, then any focal length
macro will offer the same DOF. The differences are in working
distance and angle of view.

If you need to be 4" away from a given subject to get the image you
need with a 50mm lens, the same subject size will allow you 8" away
with a 100mm and 16" away with a 200mm macro lens. This makes a big
difference with insects and bugs that may be spooked as you approach,
and it makes practical differences to your lighting setup.

The angle of view is also different - a 50mm will include a wider
background than a 100mm. This may bot be an issue for you if the
components you are photographing are on PCBs or on a table, but if
you are after insects in the wild for instance, the longer the focal
length the easier it is to avoid distracting backgrounds.

--
Cheers,

Dave
http://purpledog.smugmug.com

'Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur'
Click to expand...
I was a bit unclear as to how it related to magnification versus the field of view, but thanks for clearing that up!

--
http://www.flickr.com/dr4gon
 
I enjoy Macro photography and would love to duplicate these fantastic pictures with my new A-200. What lens would you suggest providing I could approach your expertise?

Thanks - Bruce
 
Gil

Like you, I enjoy macro pics from my P & S. Recently sold my wonderful Sigma 105 2.8 macro lens because I was rarely using it. Also because I was rarely carrying the DSLR system when most of the macro opportunities came up. (hiking). And yes, you can certainly buy a nice macro P&S for less that a decent DSLR macro lens.
Bert
 
Get the Minolta 100mm f2.8 and you won't regret it. Check up the Ebay.
 
"macro/tele P&S with achromats and front tc to get these, : )... Hand held with on board flash. I am still trying to duplicate with my DSLR setup w/o much success because I am cheap, lol."

I just got my Sony 100mm/2.8 last week so I haven't played with it as much as I plan to when the weather is nice. I enjoy macros in my garden.

But you have me curious about your methods. What are achromats? Can you provide some details of your setup?

Which p&s do you use?

--
Sony Alpha 350~Sony 70-300G~Sony 100 f2.8~Sony 50f1.4~Sony 28 f2.8~Sony 18-70
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top