Lens comparison for macro work

Janer_2 wrote:

I just started subbing to this forum and recently I have been getting more interested in macro photography as well. As of now I have a few lenses that I am weighing up against each other.

Just for fun I have already got some close up filters from Polaroid coming in, macro rings/helicoids and various enlarger lenses that I've had some fun with. The only "macro lens" I have is the Industar 61 LZ which has been great fun so far, but I still find myself wanting something modern as well.

The trouble with your question is the lack of preciseness clarifying what you're really after. Do you really want to be shooting at 1:1, or more?

Or mostly do you mean "close-up" ... 1:4 to 1:1?

Most people really don't pursue 1:1, and beyond, when their walking around snapping. You pretty much have to be dedicated to this discipline.

FYI I have also posted this question, with a twist, in the astro forum as I intend to get the lens that could bring the most in both macro and AP. I understand that it's a compromise regarding AP, but the low CA, suitable aperture and FL has me thinking they could probably do both reasonably well. It's not an identical cross post, but i's just a heads up.

1. Nikon AF-s Micro 105mm F2.8 ED VR
2. Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro
3. Sigma 150mm F2.8 APO Macro DG HSM
4. Sigma APO 180mm F3.5 Macro

I've owned over 30 macro lenses, if you include exotics (+ fiddling with Nikkor AI-S prime and zoom lenses, reversed). All of those lenses, above, are very soft wide-open. Most common macro lenses are.

These are the lenses I am considering and find available second hand at the moment. The Nikon is the most expensive one at $484, followed by the Sigma 150 at $337, then the Sigma 180 at $315 and the cheapest of the bunch is the Sigma 105 at $309.

Again, considering for what? General walk around? Live subjects?

What are the most common reproduction ratios you find yourself at? 1:4?, 1:2?, 1:1?, 2:1? ...

To answer this, you need to clarify what are your most usual subjects?

• 9 mm spiders?
• 20-40 mm butterflies?
• Non-moving flowers?
• 50-100 mm dragonflies or mantids?

The answers to these questions will help you determine what macro lens would be best suited for your needs. Because the best lenses for one and will not be the best lenses for the other.

If you're shooting subjects between 9 mm and 20mm, then none of the lenses you mentioned above are going to be adequate.

If you'r shooting things like butterflies, praying mantises, dragonflies, and lizards then you don't even need a true macro lens. A 70-200 zoom, or 100-400 zoom, is all you're going to need — especially if they have 1:4 to 1:2 reproduction ratios.

My mind is leaning towards the Nikon mainly because all my modern lenses are well.. Nikon. I've read reviews and certain posts on DPR comparing some of these lenses to each other and as always there are mixed reviews and I am no wiser for it. Though F2.8 is compelling to me as I seek to use it for different purposes, be it macro, astro or general photography/portraits.

None of the lenses you've named above are "modern" ... they are all dated and under-performing, if you're looking for super-sharpness wide-open + low CA.

The kind of macro I intend to do is a bit unclear, I just want something that is able to catch insects, flowers and generally things I find interesting. The more details the better so something that yields sharp results. This might describe all of the above. Handheld performance is a plus, but all of these have stabilizing so that might be ok all over the board.

Well this goes back to my first response, that you finally come to terms with: you're unclear. If you can't clearly define your goals, the no one can give you a clear answer.

That said, it sounds to me like you aren't really interested in extreme macro, but walk-around snapping "hand-held."

You also haven't clarified if you intend to use flash or not.

If you're wanting to get "up-close and personal," and plan to get into extreme magnifications, then you're most likely going to need a flash, unless you're using a tripod. Even then, you still might need a flash if your subject is active.

If, however, you're wanting to shoot things like butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, then you really don't need a "macro" lens at all. If you're going to use a macro lens, then a 180-200 mm is what you're going to be after.

I've used three iterations of the Canon 180/3.5 L Macro, two iterations of the Sigma 180/2.8 APO Macro, and three iterations of the Micro-Nikkor 200/4D ... for butterflies and such, and they were all excellent.

However, I sold my last Micro-Nikkor 200/D in favor of a true modern lens, the Z 70-200/2.8 S + TCs, because what I mostly shoot are butterflies and reptiles. The new Z zoom simply allows me to do this from further away than any macro lens.

IMO, shooting butterflies really isn't operating in true macro territory, as you're typically going to be shooting at 1:4 to 1:2. You're not really going to want to use flash, either, as it will likely scare them away. What you're really going to need is distance away from your subject, which is what the zoom + TCs provide.

The Z 70-200/2.8 S is optically superior to any of the elderly macro lenses you mentioned, and probably cost as much as all of them put together. However, while it's not a true macro lens, it does have legit image quality, wide-open, substantially-superior VR, and when deploying TCs it gives you handhold-ability, in natural light, that you won't experience with a budget macro.

Here are some examples using this lens (bare, w/ a 1.4x TC, and a 2x TC) all of which I took as a "walk around-snapper," without the need for flash. Only a few required a tripod (when I was deploying in-body stacking):

Green Ratsnake

Portrait, wide-open

Banded Gecko, stack

Yarrow's Spiny Lizard

Red-Spotted Toad

Couch's Spadefoot

• The zoom + TCs can also get closer ...

Arizona Sister

West-Coast Lady

Texas Crescent

Fatal Metalmark

Arizona Hairy Scorpion, stack

Tarantula Hawk

Arizona Net-winged Beetle, stack

Etc., etc.

None of these are proper "macro" shots, they're not 1:1 or more. The last image was a heavy crop, but it still works.

• So the real question is are you truly looking to go 1:1 or greater?
• Or do you really mean close-ups of smaller subjects.

Once you clarify that question, then you clarify whether you actually need a true macro lens or not.

After browsing Flickr I'm not really getting a feel for which would suit me the best, The 105mm's might be the most convenient for walking around and carrying in a bag. But considering performance I would really like some shared experiences from these. Not just regarding sharpness etc but also how convenient they are in terms of focus distance and proximity to the subject. The 180mm brings a lot of range to the table, but a 105mm might be more than enough for all I know.

A 105mm lens isn't really suitable for a wide variety of live subjects, as it doesn't give the distance or focal length.

Also, I mainly use a D800 and have the possibility to adapt them to a A7 II if I feel adventurous.

I've shot the D810 and D850, both wonderful in many ways, but they lack IBIS.

I sold my D850 in favor of the Z7 II, which combined with the Z 70-200/2.8 S, gives legit hand-holding capability in natural light.

If you're looking to get closer than the images I've illustrated this post with, with legit sharpness wide-open — and you want AF — then the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Art DG Macro has legit world-class optical ability. However, you can't really go past 1:1 with it. Also, you'd miss a lot of the shots I took here, because the subjects would have fled before you could get close enough to fill the frame.

If you want closer than 1:1 on a regular basis, then the Laowa 100/2.8 2x APO also has world-class optical ability, but you will need a tripod or a flash.

If super-close focus is your real goal, take up look at Gardner's Assistant's blog, he has a lot of experience shooting a huge variety of subjects, almost all of which is greater than 1:1.