DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Pros and Cons: 50mm macro v. 105mm macro

Started Jun 29, 2021 | Questions thread
Gary from Seattle Veteran Member • Posts: 7,852
Re: Pros and Cons: 50mm macro v. 105mm macro

richj20 wrote:

BSiler wrote:

I have a 105mm, F-mount, Nikon macro lens that I use on a mirrorless body. My "macro" shots are mostly close-ups of flowers, and I rarely shoot at 1:1 magnification.

Setting aside weight and price -- for close-up and macro shooting, what are the pros and cons of a 50mm FL versus 105mm?

I've always had a 50mm macro lens because I use it also as my "normal" lens. It is always mounted on one of my cameras. It is usually the camera/lens I carry with me each day, and I am ready for any flower opportunities that I encounter when out and about.

I understand the 105mm puts the camera farther away from the subject, which can help with shadows.

Often when hiking, I will photograph both a single flower, and then back up a bit for the entire plant/shrub. Most of the time there isn't room enough to back up to use a long lens.

For anything botanical it is important to know what details are critical in identification/differentiation so close-up and distant shots are generally necessary to have a perspective on the plant and it's habitat as well. The close-up images are valuable for details such as hairs, glands, sepal, and tube details. For me, though, my standard lens is a zoom of 12-40 (24-80) and I take pictures of general details with that lens. With vascular plants, macro detail is generally not necessary - just close-up imaging. With mosses I shoot, however, macro of 1:1 to 2:1 is necessary for differentiation details. For me then that means changing lenses back and forth between the zoom and a macro lens. This is quite time consuming and requires concentration in setting and changing menu and exposure details.

The length of the hairs and their density differentiates this species of wildflower.

Otherwise for vascular plants, when I shoot macro, it is generally for an attempt to create an artistic image - often with wide or nearly wide apertures for background blurring.

I did this today in my garden:

I couldn't have gotten this angle with a 100mm lens.

I carry a small flash which is useful in low light and at night.

Is the size difference important?

For me an advantage of a small/light lens (8 oz.) is I can hold/click one handed when necessary: to hold a small branch out of the way, for example. I am not able to steady a longer, heavier lens with one hand.

Rarely do I have an issue with shadows. Unless a very tiny flower, I can back up and crop from the large sensor file size.

- Richard

 Gary from Seattle's gear list:Gary from Seattle's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x Teleconverter EC-14 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow