Best Macro for a6500 on a budget?

[jungleexplorer]

Spring is here and I have been out shooting nature to the tune of 2000 pictures in the last few days. Mostly wildflowers and insects. I have used four different lenses and I am just not happy with what I am getting in the macro department. I just can't land a really sharp macro. The four lenses I am using are as follows.

1. Sony 18-135mm f3.5 OSS

2. Sigma Macro 50mm f2.8 (Adapted legacy film Pentax lens)

3. Pentax-M SMC Macro 100mm f4 (Adapted legacy film Pentax lens)

4. Helios 44-2 58mm F2 (Adapted)

The sharpest and brightest of these four lenses is the Sony, but it is not a macro. The only true Macro is the Sigma, but you have to be like 1/2 inch away from the subject to get a close-up and then it is a virtually flat DOF. The Pentax 100mm gives me the longer focusing distance I want, but the glass is crap and it produces really soft images. The Helios is a really nice lens with great bokeh, and a long focus distance, but it is not a macro lens either.



So the two main feature I want is SHARP and longer focusing distance. I know that the answer is the Sony 90mm Macro, but that is out of my price range. I don't mind doing everything manually, and actually, prefer it when it comes to macro photography. I even switch the Sony lens to manual use the focus magnifier and peaking when doing macro.

I just want a really good sharp macro lens, so I can get up close and person with very small objects. Take this picture for example. This is a close as I could get with the Sony 18-135mm on this tiny bug.




If you don't see it. The bug is sitting sideways on the stick right in the middle .

 

[Htbaa]

Well, aside from the Sony 90mm you mentioned there’s also a 30mm f/3.5 and a 50mm (f/2.8 I think, FE lens). I own the 30mm and for small bugs it’s not very usable as you basically need to stick the lens in the face of the bug. The 50mm might be a lot better in that aspect.

Manual macro lenses I’m not sure of what’s out there. There’s a Voightlander 65mm macro out there as well. Fully manual. But or $999 you might as well get the Sony 90mm.

There’s also the Bresser 60mm macro which is a lot more affordable. A couple of years ago I looked into that one but I believe that’s a knock-off of another (good) brand.

 

[AdVeen]

There's also the Zeiss Touit 50 macro, which can be found secondhand between 600-700. This is AF. I think it currently has a Zeiss discount when bought new.

 

[Sympa]

If on a budget, it can be checked which lenses work well with rings or (achromatic) diopters.

I must say that I loved taking macro shots with my compact cameras, with the E-mount less so. However I have tried enough so that I know not all lenses react the same to extension rings.

Also, longer focal length lenses are not 'impressed much' by rings - 36 mm of rings added to a 200 mm lens do not increase magnification much - for those you can use a diopter.

 

[Patrizia]

You can have a look at the sigma 70 macro e mount, rather good macro and the price is about 560 euros, in Italy, probably it will cost less in your country.

 

[Patrizia]

Here is a link to the review https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-70mm-f-2-8-dg-macro-art-review-32368

 

[Super_T]

If you can live with manual focus this is an option at less than half the price of the Sony: Samyang/Rokinon 100mm f/2.8 ed umc macro.

It has been available for a while and you might even be able to find a used copy.

 

[jungleexplorer]

Thanks. I will look into this lens. since this lens is all manual, does it make a difference if it is an E-mount or can I buy another mount and adapted it and get the same performance (the Nikon version is almost $200 less then the E-mount)?

 

[Eniigma_21]

The Pentax 100mm gives me the longer focusing distance I want, but the glass is crap and it produces really soft images. So the two main feature I want is SHARP and longer focusing distance.

For insects, 70mm or longer is the answer, because of working distance. More magnification means less DOF, trade-offs.

I know that the answer is the Sony 90mm Macro, but that is out of my price range.

Not really.

I just want a really good sharp macro lens, so I can get up close and person with very small objects.

Yet, you said the DOF is "flat". For small insects (define small), you need 1:1 or greater magnification so DOF is thin.

You'd been provided with some solutions already. I'll give you some more:

- Do a research of diopter add-ons. e.g. Raynox DCR-150 is very popular. You will need a step-up ring to use it with the 18-135.

- Reverse ring using an old 50mm lens. Check here

- Old manual macro lenses can be found cheap online. There is plenty of information about lenses on the macro forum and adapted lens forum

- Extension tubes are cheap. They will help to get closer.

BTW, the photo you posted with the 18-135 at 118mm, in case you don't know, the minimum focus distance (the closer you can get, the more magnification) of a zoom lens is at the long end, at 135mm.




Sample from a $30 legacy 100mm macro lens and fill flash. Common Green Bottle Fly. Cropped 10%.

--
Gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/156719406@N07/

 

[jungleexplorer]

The reason the first photo I posted was shot at 118mm instead of 135mm is that based on the research I have done on the Siny 18-135 lens, it is sharpest between 22mm and 118mm. I set my F-stop to f10 to try to get a little more DoF, (thus the 1600 ISO).

Here is a little egg on my face. When I first bought this camera and lens, I bought a Meike MK-S-AF3B AF Extension Tube I had forgot about. I remembered it this morning and went looking for it. I found it and snapped it on my Sony 18-133mm lens and went hunting for insects.

Even though the Meike MK-S-AF3B AF Extension Tube offers AF, these shots were taken on manual with focus magnifier and peaking on. These are handheld shots because (more egg on my face) I can't find my tripod. I think I left it out in the field where I was shooting yesterday (after 1000 squats, I was exhausted and in pain).

These shots are not cropped. I could have gotten a little closer to them but did not want to scare them off. Plus these bugs were in stinging nettle (you can see the spins in the photos) which I was almost laying down in to get these shots. The things I do for a good shot. I must be nuts.

 

[phototeacher]

The reason the first photo I posted was shot at 118mm instead of 135mm is that based on the research I have done on the Siny 18-135 lens, it is sharpest between 22mm and 118mm. I set my F-stop to f10 to try to get a little more DoF, (thus the 1600 ISO).

Here is a little egg on my face. When I first bought this camera and lens, I bought a Meike MK-S-AF3B AF Extension Tube I had forgot about. I remembered it this morning and went looking for it. I found it and snapped it on my Sony 18-133mm lens and went hunting for insects.

It is amazing the items we accumulate and then forget about. At least you did not buy them again!

The extension tubes are a good start, but I would echo Eniigma_21's suggestion of an old manual focus adapted lens as an inexpensive way to go. Along with the tubes you should be able to get beyond the 1:1 ratio.

 

[jungleexplorer]

The reason the first photo I posted was shot at 118mm instead of 135mm is that based on the research I have done on the Siny 18-135 lens, it is sharpest between 22mm and 118mm. I set my F-stop to f10 to try to get a little more DoF, (thus the 1600 ISO).

Here is a little egg on my face. When I first bought this camera and lens, I bought a Meike MK-S-AF3B AF Extension Tube I had forgot about. I remembered it this morning and went looking for it. I found it and snapped it on my Sony 18-133mm lens and went hunting for insects.

It is amazing the items we accumulate and then forget about. At least you did not buy them again!

The extension tubes are a good start, but I would echo Eniigma_21's suggestion of an old manual focus adapted lens as an inexpensive way to go. Along with the tubes you should be able to get beyond the 1:1 ratio.

Yes. I would like to go 1:1 and beyond. I have heard that it can be done via lens reversal, but I think I would like to do it the normal way with a good old lens. My issue is, when I look at samples from old lens, I can't really find many samples of ultra macro shots and the few I can find don't look all that good. It is hard to tell if the lens is the problem or the photography is, but without knowing, I don't feel comfortable spending money.

Another thing is the lack of specs information about older lenses. A lot of lenses say they are macro or people use them for macro and recommend them, but they are not macro lenses, even if they say they are.

Which old legacy lens would you recommend?

 

[phototeacher]

I don't do too much macro, but I have an old Nikkor 105mm. It is marked "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8D." I use it in the manual focus mode, with either a Fuji or Sony adapter. This lens has an aperture ring, so there is no problem in being able to couple it to the camera body used. It also goes to 1:1 without any accessories.

Reversing the lens works, but you again need a lens with aperture ring, and one where the aperture will stop down with the lens not mounted to the body, since it will be reversed and not 'conected' to the body when in use.

 

[Sympa]

Lens reversal is used when you go beyond 1:1 magnification. I don't think it is such a good idea.

Or you use it to mount two lenses filter side to each other. That will halve the focal distance, so working distance will be really short. And in my experience you get vignetting.

I would say: try which lens and which focal distance gives you the best shots with the extension rings..

 

[jungleexplorer]

I don't do too much macro, but I have an old Nikkor 105mm. It is marked "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8D." I use it in the manual focus mode, with either a Fuji or Sony adapter. This lens has an aperture ring, so there is no problem in being able to couple it to the camera body used. It also goes to 1:1 without any accessories.

Reversing the lens works, but you again need a lens with aperture ring, and one where the aperture will stop down with the lens not mounted to the body, since it will be reversed and not 'conected' to the body when in use.

I have heard about this lens, but every time I do a search for it I find some outrageously expensive Nikon lens.

What do you think about this lens? TOKINA AT-X 100mm f/2.8 MACRO. Any concerns with adapting it to use with my A6500?

 

[kerpan]

This is what you need to look for:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-f28.htm

 

[phototeacher]

I don't do too much macro, but I have an old Nikkor 105mm. It is marked "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8D." I use it in the manual focus mode, with either a Fuji or Sony adapter. This lens has an aperture ring, so there is no problem in being able to couple it to the camera body used. It also goes to 1:1 without any accessories.

Reversing the lens works, but you again need a lens with aperture ring, and one where the aperture will stop down with the lens not mounted to the body, since it will be reversed and not 'conected' to the body when in use.

It is this one:

Loading…

kenrockwell.com

 

[D Cox]

The reason the first photo I posted was shot at 118mm instead of 135mm is that based on the research I have done on the Siny 18-135 lens, it is sharpest between 22mm and 118mm. I set my F-stop to f10 to try to get a little more DoF, (thus the 1600 ISO).

Here is a little egg on my face. When I first bought this camera and lens, I bought a Meike MK-S-AF3B AF Extension Tube I had forgot about. I remembered it this morning and went looking for it. I found it and snapped it on my Sony 18-133mm lens and went hunting for insects.

It is amazing the items we accumulate and then forget about. At least you did not buy them again!

The extension tubes are a good start, but I would echo Eniigma_21's suggestion of an old manual focus adapted lens as an inexpensive way to go. Along with the tubes you should be able to get beyond the 1:1 ratio.

Yes. I would like to go 1:1 and beyond. I have heard that it can be done via lens reversal, but I think I would like to do it the normal way with a good old lens. My issue is, when I look at samples from old lens, I can't really find many samples of ultra macro shots and the few I can find don't look all that good. It is hard to tell if the lens is the problem or the photography is, but without knowing, I don't feel comfortable spending money.

Another thing is the lack of specs information about older lenses. A lot of lenses say they are macro or people use them for macro and recommend them, but they are not macro lenses, even if they say they are.

Which old legacy lens would you recommend?

The Nikon macro lenses were, for some reason, called Micro-Nikkors. The 55mm Micro-Nikkor is a very useful lens, giving good results from infinity down to half life size.

To get closer, you need extension tubes (cheap enough for the plain old manual Nikon F mount) or a bellows. Bellows are great in the studio, but only the more lightweight models are usable in the field.

 

[Eniigma_21]

What do you think about this lens? TOKINA AT-X 100mm f/2.8 MACRO. Any concerns with adapting it to use with my A6500?

I've heard good things about that lens.

Some lenses I've seen often recommended around 100mm:

- Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm F/2.5 (called Bokina)

- Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 (also the older F/2.5)

- Kiron / Lester A. Dine 105mm f2.8 Macro

- Vivitar/CosinaPhoenix/Promaster 100mm f3.5 Macro (called Plastic Fantastic, the one i use)

- Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro (heavy)

- Minolta MD 100mm F/4 macro

 

[jungleexplorer]

I don't do too much macro, but I have an old Nikkor 105mm. It is marked "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8D." I use it in the manual focus mode, with either a Fuji or Sony adapter. This lens has an aperture ring, so there is no problem in being able to couple it to the camera body used. It also goes to 1:1 without any accessories.

Reversing the lens works, but you again need a lens with aperture ring, and one where the aperture will stop down with the lens not mounted to the body, since it will be reversed and not 'conected' to the body when in use.

It is this one:

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/105af.htm

This one?

https://www.adorama.com/us 1102984.html?utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=adl-gbase