Lens comparison for macro work

Janer_2 wrote:

Holger Bargen wrote:

Dear Janer2,

all of the lenses you are considering to buy are fine.

If you are interested in taking photos of insects or animals with some flight distance, the longer focal length will be better. The second advantage of a longer focal length is the tighter deepness of field. You can isolate the object in front of a soft bokeh much easier at the longer focal length.

You have to accept that you need a little longer learning curve with the longer focal length. You have to find the object at some distance and keep the object within the small range of DOF. This is easier at smaller focal length. However, after soem training the problems will vanish and the results are worth it.

I have the 105 mm Sigma lens and it is a very sharp one. However, if I were you, I would take one of the longer lenses. The 180 mm lens is a very good one. The 150 mm seems to be a little bit more new design. I don't know, if it is better. I have a Pentax 200 mm f4 as my favorite macro lens. While searching for this rare lens, I had the Sigma 180 mm on my list, too.

Best regards

Holger

Thank you, exactly the kind of response I've been looking for with first hand user experience. It's interesting that you recommend the only lens I had actually sort of ruled out The focal length is tempting, but as you and others say, it also comes with a steep learning curve. I know all too well how difficult it is to find and lock on to subjects with long focal lengths, but I also see the potential benefits and rewards.

The reason I had ruled it out mainly was due to the weight and max aperture. F2.8 was kind of a bare minimum to me considering I am looking to use the new lens for both macro and astrophotography. Although considering I use tracking for that, it isn't a 100% no go. The weight troubles me however. But that's a discussion for the AP forum, I'm kind of using both arenas now just to potentially make a better and more informed decision with the information compared.

When it all comes down to it I expect to be making a compromise one way or the other. The 150mm is seemingly the one I get the least feedback on.

I do macro photography since many years and I started with lenses with focal length around 100 mm. I also own a 50 mm Pentax macro lens and a 70 mm Sigma macro lens. This Sigma 70 mm macro lens could be interesting for you, too. I know it is not on your list but the optics is close to perfect of that lens - and you have almost best performance already at f 2.8 (maximum opening of the aperture). I don't do any astro photography but if a good resolution at f 2.8 is important I don't know a better lens - except of the latest lens generation of the big brands with the extremely pricey lenses. It's also a good portrait lens where just the old and noisy screwdrive AF may be not so nice.

Regarding the insects it depends on which ones you would like to take photos of. Honeybees are used to be close to human beings and they are no problem at all. Non apis bees - the not social living wild bees are much more tricky and this is a group of insects where I need my 200 mm. Maybe it depends also on the region where you live. In gerneral, wild animals are more shy if they live in regions with dense human zivilisation - and the region I live in is almost extreme. For taking photos of butterlies (except of the very common ones) my 200 mm is not enough - I have to go longer regarding the focal length. Bugs and beetles are usually not so shy and 100 mm is enough. Dragonflies can be easily cheated. You have to come near to them in steps - short moments of move and then stop - they don't manage to realise this kind movement and you can almost pet them (just joking).

If it comes to macro work, you do not need a lens with wide aperture, as you will have to close it upt to f 8 - f 13 (the range I prefer). Macro work often needs additional light and it is easier to prepare a setup with good illumination for a 100 mm lens than for a 200 mm lens, as light gets weaker with the square of distance.

No matter what's your decision - you can't get wrong. All lenses on your list are very good. The prices you were talking about are fair. Especially the ones with the longer focal length seem to be almost cheap. I am into the Pentax system where it is not so easy to get used macro lenses with longer focal lenght. Maybe the prices I think of are not relevant for your system for this reason - something that is rare will be expensive, too.

If you are willing to give more money for a new lens, this one looks interesting for me:

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-100mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/

The advantage is a better macro range. Most 100 mm macro lenses end at 1:1 magnification (where accorind definition macro just starts). The Laowa lens allows to go to 2x magnficiation. And regarding the optics, this lens seems to be up to date. If I would buy a new macro lens, I would decide for this one.

The lens is not AF (and aperture not controlled by the camera except of Canon). The AF is no problem as in macro range AF is almost useless. I go a little to the front and back, almost swinging with very small applitude around the optimal focus and try to take the photo at the right moment. This works much better than AF to me. Regarding the not controlled aperture the ease of using the lens is a little limited.

Best regards

Holger