What Macro lenses?

[ctwyatt]

Howdy all,

I was wondering what macro lenses people own and any suggestions on a first macro lens to get. I really haven't done macro photography (used closeup lenses) before but from viewing several photos here, it looks like something I would like to try.

If anyone could point me in the right directions that would be great.

thanks

skip

 

[mdl50]

... in order of buying:

1- Minolta 50/2.8.

All reviews are great, and so is my experience. In the reviews this lens performs even better than the Minolta 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 primes, and you can have a much closer working distance. Best macro lens for depicting plain subjects (like stamps). Nevertheless I sold the lens to my son ...

2- Tamron 90/2.8

Also very good, but I didn't like the rather weak build quality. So I changed it for:

3- Minolta 100/2.8. This is the macrolens I kept. Great build quality, great performance. I sold my 50/2.8 because with the 100/2.8 I can take more distance in taking shots of blooms & insects (compared to 50/2.8 with same enlargement), which is an advantage because you catch more light, so faster shutterspeeds are possible, and there's less chance of knocking out the bee ;-)

Also the Sigma 105/2.8 and 150/2.8 seem to be very good, but as I have no experience with these lenses, I can't give you my personal opinion.

--
Regards, Mario.
http://www.mario.zenfolio.com

 

[EvilOne]

I would go with the tamron 90 f/2.8 1:1 Macro because it has a 6 year warranty..
and it has a 90 dollar rebate. Ive never had an issue with a tamron lens...



--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

 

[Frenske]

Well the choice of lenses just got bigger with Tamron introducing the 60mm f/2 with internal focusing. This lens might be ideal to double as portrait lens, since it is fast and the right focal length.

In truth there are no bad macro lenses even the 'Fantastic Plastic' performs more than adequate. The Minolta/Sony is highly regarded but I have a feeling that people are more biased towards Minolta rather than lets say Sigma or Tamron.

I have the Minolta 50mm f/3.5 (yes f/3.5 not a typo) which absolutely brilliant: sharp, creamy bokeh. Unfortunately its magnification is only 1:2 but this lens can be found for 100GBP and extension tubes can bring the magnification up to 2:1. I have been looking into a real macro and I am leaning towards the Sigma 70mm f2.8 after reading the reviews and the price is right (about 120GBP cheaper than Sony 100mm f2.8), but I think I will wait until the first reviews of the Tamron 60mm f2 come out.
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

 

[RayB44]

I have the Minolta 100/2.8. It is a great lens and i recommend it highly.
--
Ray

 

[TCav]

There are no BAD Macro lenses.

As with anything else, you should pick a lens that will work well for what you want to shoot. Do you want to shoot flowers or insects? Do you want to shoot watches or watch parts.

If you want to shoot things that you might inadvertently frighten away, get a longer focal length so you won;t get too close.

If you want to shoot with available light, get a lens that lets you back away so you don't block your own light.

If you can control your subject and your light, then a shorter lens might do well.

 

[ctwyatt]

I guess I'm leaning towards the Tamron 90 or the sigma 105. I found a sigma 50 that's fairly cheap, but i thought the focusing distance might be alittle too close.

Has any one used the sigma 180? Is the focusing distance a problem?

thanks

skip

 

[MsBritmor]

I love my Tamron 90/2.8, and I bought it with a rebate. Guess they are doing that again... http://www.tamron.com/lenses/rebates.asp
--
Karen Brittan, Minnesota, USA



'The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep
coming along and sticking things in it.' Berkely Breathed

 

[TCav]

... I found
a sigma 50 that's fairly cheap, but i thought the focusing distance
might be alittle too close.

For a 1:1 macro, the focusing distance is a function of the angle of view, which is a function of the focal length. If you don't want to get "too" close, get a lens with a longer focal length. All the current macro lenses will do 1:1, and the minimum focusing distance is a function of the focal length.

 

[Karel Osten]

Howdy all,

I was wondering what macro lenses people own and any suggestions on a
first macro lens to get. I really haven't done macro photography
(used closeup lenses) before but from viewing several photos here, it
looks like something I would like to try.

If anyone could point me in the right directions that would be great.

thanks

skip
--

--
Hi Skip,

This is a common question and has been addressed in quite a few posts. I have attached a link to one that went on longer than most and should contain something of interest even if it did go a bit OT.

I have both the 50 mm and the 100 mm macro lenses and they are both good but for different types of shooting. One thing to consider before you invest in more Minolta/Sony glass is the limited support for macro photography by Sony.

Karel

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=30507100&q=macro&qf=m

 

[ctwyatt]

Karel

thanks for the help. I'll spend some time going through it all. Which one ( 50 or 100) do you use the most?

skip

 

[Karel Osten]

...
Which one ( 50 or 100) do you use the most?

skip

--

Skip,

The 50 mm spends most time on the camera(s) simply because I find it a useful focal length with a faster aperture (and shallower dof) than my standard walk around lens which is the CZ 16-80. I find the 50 mm fine for larger objects like flowers, so I'm really using the lens for close-up rather than "macro” photography. I am also confident that I can handhold the 50 mm for this sort of shooting, whereas for the 100 mm I use a tripod and remote shutter release. That means that using the 100 mm requires more equipment and planning as opposed to spontaneously using the 50 mm on an everyday walk. That said I really enjoy the bokeh of the 100 mm, and the flatter perspective of the longer lens suits some subjects. The extra “reach” is useful too. I find the CZ 16-80 a good close up lens, although it does have the aperture/dof limitations compared to the primes.

If you are going to shoot moving objects, using a longer aperture lens say 90 mm+ at high magnifications you will probably need a flash set up depending on your ambient light conditions.

Karel

 

[pheanix300]

I have the 50 3.5 and 100 2.8 D (both minolta), and love them both. I had a Tamron 90 but sold it because of the build. No problem with IQ though.

A former member (Rich Lanthier) of this group used a Sigma 105 and loved it. His pictures (which are impressive) are still in old posts. Use the search to see samples of his work.
--
From the original Pheanix:
'Shoot first (pictures that is); ask questions later'
Keith (me) - the original pheanix