Macro lens choice 50mm or 70mm?

[minoltak]

Hi,

I am looking for a macro lens for my daughter. She studies biology and likes and to photographs all the flower, bugs, insects etc. I would like to buy a suitable lens for that reason. Unfortunately macro photography is unknown to me and I don’t want to buy an inappropriate macro lens.

A have an Sony A7III and I am choosing between the:

Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_50_2p8_macro

and

Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_70_2p8_dg_macro_a

Which one would be more suitable for my daughter's needs. What role plays the different focal length of both lenses. Both are 1:1 lenses and I understand that with the 50mm I can (have to) get closer to the subject and with the 70 mm I don’t have to get that close but I cannot evaluate what is better for the praxis and if there are any other aspects I am not aware of.

What focal length do you think would be more useful 50mm or 70mm?

Please advise.

Jan

 

[flakin stephen]

Hi Jan,

I don't think there's a killer argument either way in terms of focal length, it's all swings and roundabouts.

I'm not suggesting that your daughter isn't a 'real man' but I'd point out that the 50mm is half the weight of the other.

I'm only saying this as I gave a Sony A700 and (the old) sigma 70mm macro, plus other stuff to my daughter who's a biologist, and she would have liked a lighter set-up.

I've since replaced said lens with both 105mm and 50mm macros, and tend to go for the 50mm for anything that's not an insect.

Hope that helps,

cheers,

flakey

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

When it comes to macro, longer is nearly always better. For a very simple reason - you need space between the lens and the subject (for lighting, and for the subject's comfort).

A short macro lens is cheaper, but mostly suited to photographing something flat, like stamps or coins. The working distance between the front of the glass and the subject might be an inch (look this up for the lenses you are evaluating, and remember that you may see a specification where the SENSOR distance to subject is given rather than the front of the glass).

When shooting 1:1, there is no difference in the image itself from one focal length to another, no more or less depth of field. But there can be a huge difference in the space you have to work with, and that's important when shooting live subjects, and convenient any time.

Some things are different when shooting macro - autofocus isn't particularly useful, and vibration reduction is also not as good. Thus, with a camera like a Nikon that takes older lenses, you can look at manual focus lenses from decades ago. Perhaps the same with a Sony, using an adapter.

I shoot a lot with a 105mm macro, and it's about the shortest focal length I want to use. I also have a 60mm macro, and I only used it once or twice. It's just too short, forcing me to get too close to my subjects. (I particularly shoot macro and close focus underwater). 90mm is a popular focal length for budget macro, and I'd certainly be looking in that range and longer.

Longer than 105, a macro lens should have a tripod collar. When shooting macro, you typically are stopped down quite far, often F20-32, for depth of field. That means slow shutter speeds and/or flash. You also have such narrow depth of field that focus is critical, and it's a lot easier to do on a tripod. At 105mm, tripod collars aren't completely necessary, but hanging the camera with lens off a camera mount starts to feel unwieldy.

If the lenses you listed are the only choices, go for the 70mm.

 

[BBbuilder467]

Hi,

I am looking for a macro lens for my daughter. She studies biology and likes and to photographs all the flower, bugs, insects etc. I would like to buy a suitable lens for that reason. Unfortunately macro photography is unknown to me and I don’t want to buy an inappropriate macro lens.

A have an Sony A7III and I am choosing between the:

Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_50_2p8_macro

and

Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_70_2p8_dg_macro_a

Which one would be more suitable for my daughter's needs. What role plays the different focal length of both lenses. Both are 1:1 lenses and I understand that with the 50mm I can (have to) get closer to the subject and with the 70 mm I don’t have to get that close but I cannot evaluate what is better for the praxis and if there are any other aspects I am not aware of.

What focal length do you think would be more useful 50mm or 70mm?

Please advise.

Jan

Based o the specs, the 50mm would have about 3" working distance to the lens and the 70mm would be about 6" at 1:1.

You are very likely to use a speedlight with a diffuser/ducting for macro where the added working distance can work to your advantage. For insects you might add extension tubes to increase the image size. That's another area where the 70mm would be better suited.

I prefer a shorter macro lens, but my primary interest is flowers and similar nature subjects that rarely need to be 1:1. And I might focus from underneath the subject, so there is no room. I "never" do insects and rarely do macro without flash.

 

[deanimator]

When it comes to things that can run or fly away (or bite or sting) longer focal length is always better.

The closer you have to get to a live subject, the more likely you are to provoke a "fight or flight" reaction.

I use a Tokina 100mm macro lens on my Canon T4i. Most of my live subjects are nocturnal spiders and centipedes which are both intolerant of close proximity, as well as often in awkward locations and orientations.

 

[Guito55]

I haven't tried the 70mm, but can say that I wasn't a fan of the 50mm 2.8 fe. Super short working distance and when the lens is fully extended it's quite long! The build quality feels cheap.

 

[NancyP]

Suggest full frame focal length of 70 to 105 mm for general use, for ease of more working space / lighting of subject. Focal length 50mm for close-up (say, 1:2 mag - half-size) but not 1:1 macro, particularly for indoors "studio" photography subject with good lighting. Suggest 150 mm if chasing bugs in the field. I am not a mirrorless user. Of the two lenses you mention, the 70mm.

Most of all - either a tripod and wired release, or a flash (she can build a flash diffuser for 0 (paper plate) to under $10.00 (vellum paper) from online plans and examples.

 

[LesPickstock]

If she is using Sony 7x camera (yours?) the (expensive) Sony 90mm FE lens is the one I'd go for. SHARP, longer (safer) reach, fully matched to camera. Others have explained why longer is better.

Downside.... (only one)... EXPENSIVE

 

[WhistlerNorth]

Curious what you went with. I have a much smaller Sony a6500 and deciding between 50,70 or 105mm for macro. (Looking at new Sigma 105 vs Sony 90 at longer end. ). I take mostly flowers, infrequently insects( butterflies) and lots of mushroom in season. I am of smaller stature like your daughter. I am also keeping my eye on a a larger Sony full frame but want the new tracking system that is presently on the a6440, a6600 and A7C that has not appeared yet in a more regular size full frame for larger Sony cameras. . Do not idea of viewfinder on A7C. Would love any input.

 

[macrouser]

If you look at my gallery, you will see that I am interested in all kinds of subjects. I like a macro lens for the ability to get close and magnify things.

I have the Sony 50 mm macro and the Fe 90 mm macro. For things that I don't need full macro for, I really like using the 50 mm lens. For most things, the 90 mm is better. If there is any way that you can do it, the Sony FE 90 mm macro or the Sigma 105 mm macro lens will make you a lot happier.

Many people say that auto focus is not much use with macro. If you want to take a picture of a spider in it's web and there is any wind, I have found a good way to do it. Set the camera to AF-C the focus area to zone. In the menu 1 page five set Priority Set in AF-C to AF.

There are of course many times when I use manual focus for subjects where the focus point is very specific. I often will use several methods to get the shot I want.

 

[john_name_taken]

Curious what you went with. I have a much smaller Sony a6500 and deciding between 50,70 or 105mm for macro. (Looking at new Sigma 105 vs Sony 90 at longer end. ). I take mostly flowers, infrequently insects( butterflies) and lots of mushroom in season. I am of smaller stature like your daughter. I am also keeping my eye on a a larger Sony full frame but want the new tracking system that is presently on the a6440, a6600 and A7C that has not appeared yet in a more regular size full frame for larger Sony cameras. . Do not idea of viewfinder on A7C. Would love any input.

A7R4 has the AF tracking. Some said it’s not as good as the a6600, but my experience was different. A9 is in a different league, and none of a6xxx and a7 series can touch it. You can get an used A9 or A7R4 in very good condition for less than $2.4K.

The a7c EVF has the same spec as rx100, and many did not like, but I thought it’s useable, not great, on the rx100. You can get an a7c eyecup from Amazon and that might help, but it takes up the hot shoe and you lose the use of a flash.

 

[WhistlerNorth]

Gather Sony A9 takes a completely different line of lens so would be like starting over. I have read it is a lot of Sony users favourite. A lot of decisions would have to be made.
Thanks for your input.