Macro - do I really need an auto focus lens or should I just go with MF?

So being it's winter, I've thought about getting a macro lens for times like this (when it's not really feasible to go out shooting especially when the weather is absolutely dreadful (like below 0 degrees F with bad wind chills).

Anyway, so I'm looking at various lenses and they do range in price to the more expensive likely being sharper and having auto focus, and the cheaper versions being only manual focus and perhaps not as sharp (so ranging from $400 to about $1100) which is a wide range.

My question is this : if I'm not going to be using the lens for other purposes (like portraits) do I really need an auto-focus lens? Most people I've talked to either use AF and then tweak with MF or just don't bother with AF at all....

I have the Nikon Z system and while there aren't a ton of macro lenses for it, there are some both third party, and then the Nikon ones that I can either use natively (the 50 or 105 Z) or with an adapter (like their F-mount lenses), among other brands (like Tamron has a few, although they may only be MF on the Z cameras due to compatibility). But since the Z cameras do have focus peaking I'm thinking that perhaps AF isn't as critical for macro.

I should also note that the subjects I'm probably going to be shooting would be static subjects (like flowers, plants, or non-living things like textures) and not live animals (insects) so much (if at all).

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

I use a tam sp90 on a d500 and ( just got ) an 105 MC for my z6

Mainly for close up of flowers etc.

Everyone has there own techniques but outside I MF then switch to AF-C BBF to acquire and try to hold. Good for slight breezes etc

The tam sp90 f017 does it well on the d500 and the mc105 so far seems to do that on a z6.

Also - having a motor ie AF makes tethered or in-camera focus shifting/stacking possible. You can use a macro rail but it can get tedious incrementing the camera position step by step.

Unlike you, it seems ?, I also use both my 90/105 AF macros for mid FL teles ( not for portraits )

No, no and absolutely no. For your static subjects, autofocus is definitely not necessary. In fact, as magnification increases (with any subject), autofocus often causes more problems that it helps, since it tries to focus where it wants rather than your target area (yes, spot focus helps).

Even for living/moving subjects, I think you'll hear that many macro photographers use manual focus, either by turning the focusing ring if on a tripod, or using the glide-into method if handholding. Or if on a tripod, using a focusing slide. And you are correct, focus peaking is a tremendous help in nailing perfect focus.

Manual lenses are NOT necessarily "sharper" than autofocus lenses. The reason they are cheaper, is the autofocus and auto-aperture mechanisms are complex and therefore costly to manufacture. I'm sure many people on this forum (including me) will praise the image quality of the various Laowa 2X macro lenses, all less costly than any autofocus macro lens.

The fun thing about close-up/macro, it can be done in any weather...indoors (conveniently near sources of snacks). Winter is a great time to find cool things around your house to photograph (and hone your skills for when spring arrives).

Lester Lefkowitz, author of the recently-published The Manual of Close-UP and Macro Photography,m Volumes I & II,

I shoot mainly insects on flowers and use AF 99.9% of the time. My shots are not at 1:1 but more like 0.5:1 or less. Shooting at 1:1 AF become much less useful. I use my 90mm macro for other types of shooting also so AF is important for me. So it depends on what and how you shoot. In your case you may not need it but I would not want to be without it.

--
https://paulstickley.com/insects-and-close-ups

With an af lens you can turn of off, but you cannot turn af on with a manual lens, so be sure to test before you buy.

try using any existing lens you have in manual and see how it works

sirhawkeye64 said:

So being it's winter, I've thought about getting a macro lens for times like this (when it's not really feasible to go out shooting especially when the weather is absolutely dreadful (like below 0 degrees F with bad wind chills).

Anyway, so I'm looking at various lenses and they do range in price to the more expensive likely being sharper and having auto focus, and the cheaper versions being only manual focus and perhaps not as sharp (so ranging from $400 to about $1100) which is a wide range.

My question is this : if I'm not going to be using the lens for other purposes (like portraits) do I really need an auto-focus lens? Most people I've talked to either use AF and then tweak with MF or just don't bother with AF at all....

I have the Nikon Z system and while there aren't a ton of macro lenses for it, there are some both third party, and then the Nikon ones that I can either use natively (the 50 or 105 Z) or with an adapter (like their F-mount lenses), among other brands (like Tamron has a few, although they may only be MF on the Z cameras due to compatibility). But since the Z cameras do have focus peaking I'm thinking that perhaps AF isn't as critical for macro.

I should also note that the subjects I'm probably going to be shooting would be static subjects (like flowers, plants, or non-living things like textures) and not live animals (insects) so much (if at all).

Click to expand...

I definitely get more use from a macro lens with autofocus than without. There are a lot more uses for it than just macro at 1:1.

Subjects like flowers and plants vary so much in size that you get familiar with distance and image size that you're practically in focus before you half-press, and can tweak with the AF+MF to refine the focus.

From a tripod, you need manual focus, but hand-held, I want the AF available.

I'd avoid any manual lens that didn't have auto-stop-down. That can be a real PITA.

FWIW, most flowers and nature subjects are more close-ups than true macro. Extension tubes or diopters might be all you need to start if you aren't fixated on reaching 1:1.

Person9 said:

No, no and absolutely no. For your static subjects, autofocus is definitely not necessary. In fact, as magnification increases (with any subject), autofocus often causes more problems that it helps, since it tries to focus where it wants rather than your target area (yes, spot focus helps).

Even for living/moving subjects, I think you'll hear that many macro photographers use manual focus, either by turning the focusing ring if on a tripod, or using the glide-into method if handholding. Or if on a tripod, using a focusing slide. And you are correct, focus peaking is a tremendous help in nailing perfect focus.

Manual lenses are NOT necessarily "sharper" than autofocus lenses. The reason they are cheaper, is the autofocus and auto-aperture mechanisms are complex and therefore costly to manufacture. I'm sure many people on this forum (including me) will praise the image quality of the various Laowa 2X macro lenses, all less costly than any autofocus macro lens.

The fun thing about close-up/macro, it can be done in any weather...indoors (conveniently near sources of snacks). Winter is a great time to find cool things around your house to photograph (and hone your skills for when spring arrives).

Lester Lefkowitz, author of the recently-published The Manual of Close-UP and Macro Photography,m Volumes I & II,

Click to expand...

Thank you. This pretty much confirms what I was looking for. I do agree that manual lenses are not necessarily sharper (as I 've seen some pretty disappointing MTF charts at least when comparing various options not that MTFs are the bible on which to buy/avoid but it is helpful when deciding I guess.

I'm probably going to start out with manua lfocus, as one of my reasons for asking is it's something I want to start doing, but I also don't really want to jump in head first and spend $1000+ on a native Z macro lens. Maybe I'll work up to that point, but either I'll find perhaps one of the F-mount ones and adapt, or I'll find one of the third party manual lenses (that fits the Z). Still in the exploratory phase though, haven't decided yet -- looking to see what's out there still.

I agree 100% that you absolutely do not need AF on a macro lens for inside work.

You might want to look at getting a focus rail. My rail is also manual although you can probably also get motor-driven rails where you can specify the increment.

- Gary

grsnovi said:

I agree 100% that you absolutely do not need AF on a macro lens for inside work.

You might want to look at getting a focus rail. My rail is also manual although you can probably also get motor-driven rails where you can specify the increment.

- Gary

Click to expand...

The rail I will consider depending on the complexity and cost of it (ex. if it can be used with a regular ballhead on a tripod for example, in the field if I wanted to).

I don't think I've ever used the AF on my macro lens (Sony G 90mm 2.8) - like you, I don't use it for anything other than macro/closeup. AF is slow and "hunty" on this lens in any case.

In fact, I don't use the MF on the lens either - in that I don't really use the manual focus ring. I usually just set it to 1:1, then focus by positioning myself and moving myself back or forwards until I have focus. If I'm using a tripod/rail, I'll adjust that achieve focus. It's only the rare times that for some reason I want to decrease magnification that I touch the focus ring at all (this why dedicated macro lenses usually have a magnification scale and a distance scale on them).

However, if my camera had built in focus bracketing (it doesn't, but my next one might), I would be happy that AF was there to make use of that feature.

Adding my 2 cents

If you are doing insect macro, most people would want the insect's eyes in focus. As you can see the problem here, insects are incredibly small. It's impossible to nail focus on it's eyes with auto focus. The auto focus will try to lock on, but 95% (sony 90mm), would miss.



What I do is to use the focus magnifier function to check the focus and attempt a manual focus. The focus magnifier disables auto focus, so yeah, MF is all you have.

Thanks to everyone who replied. It seems that AF is not necessary for macro, although one thing I just thought about -- and may or may not use, but would be impacted whether the lens has AF or not, is the focus shift shooting option in the Z cameras, which lets the camera basically do automatic focus stacking for you (at least capture the frames so you can stack later).

So this is something else I need to consider. I might compromise and just get the cheaper of the two lenses (the 50mm macro for Z) as it seems most of the longer 90-100mm manual focus macro lenses are around the same price (maybe $100 less) but they would mean I couldn't use the focus shift feature of the Z cameras... In considering lenses I was looking at the 105 Z macro but that's a bit more than I want to spend. I guess I could go back and look at the 105 F-mount macro lens as those can be had for around $450 used (cheaper than 50mm Z) but not sure if it will work with the bracketing feature or not (should, but not sure).

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

sirhawkeye64 said:

Thanks to everyone who replied. It seems that AF is not necessary for macro, although one thing I just thought about -- and may or may not use, but would be impacted whether the lens has AF or not, is the focus shift shooting option in the Z cameras, which lets the camera basically do automatic focus stacking for you (at least capture the frames so you can stack later).

So this is something else I need to consider. I might compromise and just get the cheaper of the two lenses (the 50mm macro for Z) as it seems most of the longer 90-100mm manual focus macro lenses are around the same price (maybe $100 less) but they would mean I couldn't use the focus shift feature of the Z cameras... In considering lenses I was looking at the 105 Z macro but that's a bit more than I want to spend. I guess I could go back and look at the 105 F-mount macro lens as those can be had for around $450 used (cheaper than 50mm Z) but not sure if it will work with the bracketing feature or not (should, but not sure).

Click to expand...

With a 50mm macro lens in full frame, I would barely need any other lens. I could use it for anything. It's 50mm. I'd "want" autofocus.

85mm or longer isn't as versatile. It might as well be all manual. I'm not going to even carry it if I don't specifically intend to use it. I don't go anywhere without the short macro lens.

Decide on the focal length first. It dictates your working distance.

If you photograph really small things, like insect eyes mentioned above, then you need manual focus. And the best option is a real manual focus lens with which you can be very precise. Autofocus lenses are useful when you use focus bracketing, however they may not be ideal for manual focusing. The "focus by wire" has some lag and you have to take that in consideration. I think Dustin Abbott mentions that in his sigma 105 review. If you want to take portraits then an autofocus lens is better. Ideally, it is good to have both. The Laowas are very good - solid, sharp and they handle chromatic aberration well. I do not know which Nikon AF lenses are recommended. Good luck!

sirhawkeye64 said:

So being it's winter, I've thought about getting a macro lens for times like this (when it's not really feasible to go out shooting especially when the weather is absolutely dreadful (like below 0 degrees F with bad wind chills).

Anyway, so I'm looking at various lenses and they do range in price to the more expensive likely being sharper and having auto focus, and the cheaper versions being only manual focus and perhaps not as sharp (so ranging from $400 to about $1100) which is a wide range.

My question is this : if I'm not going to be using the lens for other purposes (like portraits) do I really need an auto-focus lens? Most people I've talked to either use AF and then tweak with MF or just don't bother with AF at all....

I have the Nikon Z system and while there aren't a ton of macro lenses for it, there are some both third party, and then the Nikon ones that I can either use natively (the 50 or 105 Z) or with an adapter (like their F-mount lenses), among other brands (like Tamron has a few, although they may only be MF on the Z cameras due to compatibility). But since the Z cameras do have focus peaking I'm thinking that perhaps AF isn't as critical for macro.

I should also note that the subjects I'm probably going to be shooting would be static subjects (like flowers, plants, or non-living things like textures) and not live animals (insects) so much (if at all).

Click to expand...

Depends what you're shooting and at what magnification. "Need" - of course not. But having AF can be very beneficial up to around 1:1 and a little beyond it. Having AF for lower magnification (1:1 range) macro is kind of a must have for me personally - Id get by without it, but really wouldnt want to. By around 2:1, it becomes pointless in my opinion. With AF my hit rate is definitely much higher in that 1:1 range in many scenarios. If you are shooting a lot of single frame, handheld insect shots, AF is easily worth the $ in my opinion.

I very often am holding a leaf with an insect on it and in very awkward positions, or holding a leaf or flower as a backdrop, so I use AF in servo using back button focus. Bbf is good for a couple reasons - if I do find a brace or get sturdy, I can just back off of the af and its essentially locked there. If AF is set to shutter button it will keep trying to focus when I hit the shutter which would be bad for me.

AF isnt just good for actually grabbing focus either. Its good to get the magnification to where you need it. Especially when I only have one free hand. What do you do if you are focused to around 0.5:1 and want to get closer to, say, 1:1 with only one hand for the camera? If in manual, you would have to set down the flower backdrop or insect on a leaf, get focus to right spot, pick the bug back up and hope to get a shot. With AF, I can take my shot at 0.5:1, then use af to get closer and take my 1:1 shots. Even if I wasnt holding a background its good not to need a hand to turn the focus ring every time you change it a little. Say you are shooting a praying mantis and then bam, a gorgeous jumping spider appears, but you forgot to get focus back. I do often manually turn the ring to make sure Im at the lenses closest focus, but its good to not have to.

The above is only somewhat recently true and I do see a lot of people voicing the same opinions as if technology hasnt advanced over the past 25 years. Beware of that. Prior to my owning the 70D, servo af would just hunt at macro magnifications. But since then, focus had gotten much better and now with my mirrorless cameras, focus is INCREDIBLE. My hit rate while using servo has probably tripled. Noone would argue that its very hard to get a high hit rate if manually focusing by carefully leaning toward and away from the subject. It works, and its how I used to shoot all of it, but its way better with AF now.

If you are only shooting 1:1 and above from a tripod in a controlled environment, then I wouldnt worry about not having it. At macro magnifications, the dof is so shallow and well defined that you can do just as good by eye using the viewfinder.

In short, if an AF lens would bury you budget wise, then get the best you can afford and make it work..and no doubt, you can do a TON with manual focus in macro. But if you are just asking yourself if a few hundred extra is worth it for AF - I say yes, it def is.

*as a side note, i shoot canon. I cant attest to how effective Nikon af at macro magnifications is.

These bee shots I took would have been very difficult without AF. I was holding these tiny flowers as the honey bees fed from them. I continually wanted to change magnifications.







EDIT: I somehow missed you said flowers and never really insects etc. Will leave what I wrote, and I still think af is useful for flowers sometimes, just because as magnifications get lower, its harder to eyeball it. But Im not sure I would spend money for AF if I was strictly photographing flowers, plants, mushrooms myself. Its def not as useful to have af fkr your subjects. Would depend on price difference. Like if comparing $500mf to $1100af, would prob get the mf lens. If its like $350 vs $550, I would def cough up for AF.



--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

sirhawkeye64 said:

So being it's winter, I've thought about getting a macro lens for times like this (when it's not really feasible to go out shooting especially when the weather is absolutely dreadful (like below 0 degrees F with bad wind chills).

Anyway, so I'm looking at various lenses and they do range in price to the more expensive likely being sharper and having auto focus, and the cheaper versions being only manual focus and perhaps not as sharp (so ranging from $400 to about $1100) which is a wide range.

My question is this : if I'm not going to be using the lens for other purposes (like portraits) do I really need an auto-focus lens? Most people I've talked to either use AF and then tweak with MF or just don't bother with AF at all....

Click to expand...

Autofocus lenses just give you more options. I shoot a lot of macro of mosses for instance where I am traveling and may shoot any number of shots. The AF option is much more effective for this. Other times I may shoot focus stacks using a tripod and could go for either MF or AF. I would tend to use AF when my body positioning is very awkward and MF when my positioning is not awkward. It just gives me more options.

I also shoot a lot of bees - fascinating shooting of wild bees on native plants - and could not hope to get many good images were I shooting MF because the bees are constantly moving and rotating.

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have the Nikon Z system and while there aren't a ton of macro lenses for it, there are some both third party, and then the Nikon ones that I can either use natively (the 50 or 105 Z) or with an adapter (like their F-mount lenses), among other brands (like Tamron has a few, although they may only be MF on the Z cameras due to compatibility). But since the Z cameras do have focus peaking I'm thinking that perhaps AF isn't as critical for macro.

I should also note that the subjects I'm probably going to be shooting would be static subjects (like flowers, plants, or non-living things like textures) and not live animals (insects) so much (if at all).

Click to expand...

See mosses above. In flowering season I shoot a lot of native plants and would likely be lying on the ground. If not awkward, I would likely shoot in MF for this use case.

Super shot of the Bee !

Your usage of AF and MF in macro is pretty much what I find also.

Just some points you made I would like to emphasise:

AF systems on macro lenses have improved in leaps and bounds over the years ( as you said ). The Tamron SP90 F017 is markedly better than its predecessor, the F004 ( which I had ) and it is something I rely on in the field - both its AF-C and VC on a D500. I would have to resort to pulling focus/moving the camera in a burst mode in MF to try and get, say bees or actually even flora when there is anything more than a slight breeze - with low hit rates - this would be at 1:2 - 1:4 typically for flora. Tripods are no use at all in these situations and, likewise, a single shot MF almost impossible ( for me at least ) when things are moving.

It ( the Tamron ) is even effective very close to 1:1 ( backed off a bit to allow the AF system to have a control range to work in ).

I just got a MC 105 for a Z6 and although it is early days, my impression is that it is also competent in AF-C.

Inside - in the studio - also known as the dining room table which I borrow - I use AF and MF at 1:1 or 1.5:1 - whichever works best.

Obviously if you need to focus on a small part the AF may not get it - but still worth a go IMO - just a flick of a switch and a few trials. In any case, beyond 1:1 I am usually stacking - the motor in both AF enabled macros ( Tam and Nikkor ) work well for this.

Beyond 1.5:1 - out of luck with motorised macro lenses so obviously MF and most probably a wemacro rail - whether an infinity objective ( expensive )/tube lens or reversed enlarger + tubes ( cheap ) dunno right now. ( or a Laowa 2.5-5 ). I am not into incrementing even a good macro rail for 50-100 steps at say 10-20 um step - life and my patience is too short.

One thing that surprised me is that the focus by wire on the MC 105 is actually quite good - as good as the Tamron which has a mechanically coupled helicoid. I am usually focussing on a rail in fact at 1:1 -1.4:1 ( with achromats ) in MF or stacking using the motors.

I should say that the only MF macro lens I have and use is the Adaptall 2 52B from Tamron.

In response to people saying you cant use af to focus on a spiders eye: This is not true. I use af in servo all the time for small insects now in the 1:1 magnification range. I spent years only using manual, but af tech has improved dramatically. I cant attest to using Sony af and maybe it cant, but with Canon, it is very accurate in many scenerios. If the entire spider is really small in the frame, then yes, magnifying in manual may be better, but if the spider is big enough in the frame to get a focus point over the eyes, its the way to go.





--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

I see autofocus as a benefit for some situations and not for others, so it is good to have but then again about lens design: to have reasonable fast autofocus it is unachievable with the hole lens focusing but have instead only a small, lighter subset of lens groups moving. But that causes a change of the effective focal length depending on focusing distance and subsequently a different perspective and at least equally important a reduced working distance. Somewhat a dilemma, especially no camera manufacturer really discloses the actual working distance, ie. lens front to subject and not focal plane to subject.

BBbuilder467 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Thanks to everyone who replied. It seems that AF is not necessary for macro, although one thing I just thought about -- and may or may not use, but would be impacted whether the lens has AF or not, is the focus shift shooting option in the Z cameras, which lets the camera basically do automatic focus stacking for you (at least capture the frames so you can stack later).

So this is something else I need to consider. I might compromise and just get the cheaper of the two lenses (the 50mm macro for Z) as it seems most of the longer 90-100mm manual focus macro lenses are around the same price (maybe $100 less) but they would mean I couldn't use the focus shift feature of the Z cameras... In considering lenses I was looking at the 105 Z macro but that's a bit more than I want to spend. I guess I could go back and look at the 105 F-mount macro lens as those can be had for around $450 used (cheaper than 50mm Z) but not sure if it will work with the bracketing feature or not (should, but not sure).

Click to expand...

With a 50mm macro lens in full frame, I would barely need any other lens. I could use it for anything. It's 50mm. I'd "want" autofocus.

85mm or longer isn't as versatile. It might as well be all manual. I'm not going to even carry it if I don't specifically intend to use it. I don't go anywhere without the short macro lens.

Decide on the focal length first. It dictates your working distance.

Click to expand...

Yes I feel that 50mm may be a good sweet spot (both in terms of cost and focal length... I do see that some mfrs have a 35 and even a 24mm macro, which is fine, but I feel -- for my needs -- 50mm is right in the middle). 100mm may be too much in some cases (maybe if I was working with live animals like insects where working distance might be a concern, I'd consider it), but I'll probably get the 50mm at some point, and also about $400 cheaper which could be put towards a trip or another lens.