Sony 90mm G Macro vs Voigtlander 110mm Macro APO

mujana wrote:

nkistrup wrote:

mujana wrote:

I’m sorry to push this old thread up again, but I ‘m curious. What lens did you choose?
I’m in the same situation as you, and trying to choose between Voigtlander 110mm macro and Sony 90mm macro.

thank you

Rented both over a month ago, with the emphasis on infrared shooting. Have tested 10 lenses for the a6300, and the Voigtlander 110mm macro is THE WORST for infrared.

That aside, both lenses were sharp shooting in visible light, but found the 110mm a much better option (can't justify it now, but it's on my wish list for next year).

1. Sharper; comparable to the Zeiss 100mm Makro my Nikon D7100
2. Must better working distance; and the 20mm is highly significant & always preferred longer focal lengths for close-up work, since my subjects are further away
3. Manual Focus ring is incredibly smooth

And the need to set aperture on the lens doesn't bother me, since I already have 2 Zeiss Loxias, and almost always shoot in manual exposure.

If you are really torn, rent first. Good luck!

Niels

Thank you Niels. I don’t do infrared shooting. Longer reach should indeed be an advantage. With my 16-35GM and the Batis 85 I’m very happy with the AF of the A7RIV! Ofcourse with macro that could be very different, and I don’t mind MF at all. The throw of the Voigtlander is very long and that of the 90mm maybe a bit short. Apart from that, the Voigtlander extends quite a bit. That didn’t bother you?

Like the long throw, because it allows for higher precision getting the focus ring where I want it.

The Voigtlander extending got on my nerves, but I could get used to it. (Bought a Tamron lens, which has the zoom & focus rings reversed ... that's more annoying. :))

I've used the Sony 90 macro and the Voigtlander 100mm 2X macro.

I recommend you checkout Laowa's offerings. The lack of CPU contacts is frustrating, but the image quality is excellent and the extra macro range is nice to have.

The main benefit of the 90 macro is that it doubles as a portrait lens, and it's fast enough to track erratic wildlife at lower reproduction ratios (0.25-5x?)

But between the options, I prefer the Laowa.

Yes, that brings back real memories from back when I went from my Minolta SRT101 to a Minolta 7000 and was amazed by how my ratio of in/out of focus shots changed!!!  I really like the Sony 90Macro, even with old eyes.

I did my first macro shots in 1969 with a 58 mm Minolta lens and extension tubes.  It is exciting but hard to do.

The features that I find are the most important are:

1.  focus length/working distance

2.  resolution

3.  focus features such as a.  internal focus.  if you have a lens that extends, never try to use any lighting that attaches to the extending part.  It will destroy the lens.  b.  you need a focus ring that give very good control of manual focus.  c.  Auto focus can be a big help in the wind ( there is always wind outdoors ).  I set my auto focus control to AF only.  That way I can hold the focus button/shutter button down until the camera gets a focus lock.  The camera will not take a picture till it is focused.  That works best with a subject that is not too close.  At very close distances, auto focus hardly ever focuses on the point that I want.

I just got a Sony A7Rm3.  adapted lenses never give all the features that the camera has.  I have received my FE 50 mm macro lens.  I am waiting on shipment of my FE 90 mm macro lens.  My nephew has had his for over 6 years and loves it.  I am now waiting for my FE 70-300 mm Zoom to arrive.  I picked that one because it is a native lens that will focus down to 90 cm.

If I need extreme macro pictures, I can use my A mount Sigma 150 mm macro by itself or I can add my 1.4 X tele converter or the 2X converter.  On top of that I have a set of extension tubes that I can add.

Have a look at my gallery .

AZheaven wrote:

I'd buy the Voigtlander in a heartbeat for macro. But with manual focus only I will have to pass. My eyes are not what they used to be. The Sony 90mm is now high on the list, unless Tamron or Sigma comes out with a FE version. As for the current Sigma I'm not a fan of the zoom focusing and focal length.

I've tried manual focusing with my Sony 24-105 and Tamron 70-180 on my A7III. And I'm not getting any sharp shots.

Thank you AZheaven. Why would you buy the Voigtlander in a heartbeat if your eyes would be better?

dkeller wrote:

Yes, that brings back real memories from back when I went from my Minolta SRT101 to a Minolta 7000 and was amazed by how my ratio of in/out of focus shots changed!!! I really like the Sony 90Macro, even with old eyes.

Thnxs dkeller!

thank you!

burning1rr wrote:

I've used the Sony 90 macro and the Voigtlander 100mm 2X macro.

here you mean the Laowa, right?

I recommend you checkout Laowa's offerings. The lack of CPU contacts is frustrating, but the image quality is excellent and the extra macro range is nice to have.

certainly the price is good. That frustrating part I don’t like. Cannot use any MF assist from my A7RIV and also no aperture visible. Indeed frustrating. Don’t know if I want that. IQ seems very good and I really like that extra macro range as an option!

The main benefit of the 90 macro is that it doubles as a portrait lens, and it's fast enough to track erratic wildlife at lower reproduction ratios (0.25-5x?)

I probably do not use it for portraits (have my Batis 85 for that). Tracking erratic wildlife (insects), is great. How does it deal with small movements in 1:1?

But between the options, I prefer the Laowa.

Because of lack of CPU contacts/communication I already skipped the Laowa. But maybe I shouldn’t.

thank you macrouser!

macrouser wrote:

I did my first macro shots in 1969 with a 58 mm Minolta lens and extension tubes. It is exciting but hard to do.

The features that I find are the most important are:

1. focus length/working distance

same here...important! I once used a 50mm zuiko lens on my Olympus and I found it too much of an exercise to get good images...working distance way too short. Don’t want that anymore. Voigtlander seems to have a little longer working distance than the Sony 90.

2. resolution

very important indeed. In a graphic I saw, the Voigtlander on an A7RIV was there with only the very best GM lenses.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-are-the-best-lenses-for-your-a7riv/amp/

3. focus features such as a. internal focus. if you have a lens that extends, never try to use any lighting that attaches to the extending part. It will destroy the lens.

Good that you say this. I didn’t realize that. At the same time, I would like to shoot with natural light as much as possible. Except for slide copying, where I plan to use a light plate anyway.

b. you need a focus ring that give very good control of manual focus.

I think that the Voigtlander has a very nice soft dampened focus (from comments I read).......and a very long focus throw (maybe too long?). Some say the focus throw of the Sony is a bit too short .

c. Auto focus can be a big help in the wind ( there is always wind outdoors ). I set my auto focus control to AF only. That way I can hold the focus button/shutter button down until the camera gets a focus lock. The camera will not take a picture till it is focused.

Good idea!

That works best with a subject that is not too close. At very close distances, auto focus hardly ever focuses on the point that I want.

So then it’s MF anyway. I wonder if focus tracking would work in 1:1 (on my A7RIV).

I just got a Sony A7Rm3. adapted lenses never give all the features that the camera has.

Correct, but I certainly would like some communication between lens and camera (unlike the attractive Laowa macro). I think I could work with the Voigtlander (does communicate (f/stop/focus peaking), but obviously no AF. In this regard the Sony is better (but...how much will I use AF in macro?).

I have received my FE 50 mm macro lens. I am waiting on shipment of my FE 90 mm macro lens. My nephew has had his for over 6 years and loves it. I am now waiting for my FE 70-300 mm Zoom to arrive. I picked that one because it is a native lens that will focus down to 90 cm.

in general, I prefer native lenses as well. For macro, I can’t seem to make a decision.

If I need extreme macro pictures, I can use my A mount Sigma 150 mm macro by itself or I can add my 1.4 X tele converter or the 2X converter. On top of that I have a set of extension tubes that I can add.

I was thinking more of a Marumi achromat filter.

Have a look at my gallery .

I’ll look later. Cannot access your gallery from my iPhone.

thnx again!

mujana wrote:

I’m sorry to push this old thread up again, but I ‘m curious. What lens did you choose?
I’m in the same situation as you, and trying to choose between Voigtlander 110mm macro and Sony 90mm macro.

thank you

I went for the 90mm Sony (and have no regrets). I m not saying that I m consistently getting excellent results (this has to do with my lack of skills needed to fully exploit my gear!)

I just think that I couldn't live without OSS (as my a6300 doesn't have in body stabi), plus for the near to 1:1 distances, it is reported to still be the sharpest out there. Occasionally, when I manage to get everything right, I m really happy with results. Hopefully, as I up my skills, I ll get more consistent results!

I m not particularly impressed with AF speed of the 90mm. I am saying that in comparison to the 100-400GM which I ve rented for 3 days (it was blazzingly fast to focus, even on my a6300). But this is probably an unfair comparison because a) 90mm is not a GM, b) I don't have an a9 to draw safe conclusions about its speed c) it is said that pure macro lenses aren't the fastest in terms of AF performance. Also, as I get close to 1:1 range, its really struggling to focus at all (so I have to switch to MF). Luckily, I don't use AF too often, so I m not really impacted by this.

IMHO, the 90mm Sony still remains the class leading option for hardcore macro on Sony FE. I still have lots of respect for the 110mm V. (judging by the reviews), if I was to go fully manual, I d be tempted by the Laowa option (e.g. 2.5- 5x) to get that extra magnification

thank you sanosai. Good, that you found your macro lens.

sanosai wrote:

mujana wrote:

I’m sorry to push this old thread up again, but I ‘m curious. What lens did you choose?
I’m in the same situation as you, and trying to choose between Voigtlander 110mm macro and Sony 90mm macro.

thank you

I went for the 90mm Sony (and have no regrets). I m not saying that I m consistently getting excellent results (this has to do with my lack of skills needed to fully exploit my gear!)

I just think that I couldn't live without OSS (as my a6300 doesn't have in body stabi), plus for the near to 1:1 distances, it is reported to still be the sharpest out there. Occasionally, when I manage to get everything right, I m really happy with results. Hopefully, as I up my skills, I ll get more consistent results!

I’m not experienced in macro photography either. I’ll have to learn. Beside that, I use the A7RIV with IBIS (but many more pixels to deal with...probably more critical to movement). But I can also crop to APS-C size.

I m not particularly impressed with AF speed of the 90mm. I am saying that in comparison to the 100-400GM which I ve rented for 3 days (it was blazzingly fast to focus, even on my a6300). But this is probably an unfair comparison because a) 90mm is not a GM, b) I don't have an a9 to draw safe conclusions about its speed c) it is said that pure macro lenses aren't the fastest in terms of AF performance. Also, as I get close to 1:1 range, its really struggling to focus at all (so I have to switch to MF). Luckily, I don't use AF too often, so I m not really impacted by this.

that seems to be the major difference between the Voigtlander and the Sony (MF/AF). I will probably not use a macro lens for portraits (have my Batis 85 for that), or anything other than macro and slide copying. Now if the AF is of less or no use in macro photography, then I could as well buy a true MF lens like the Voigtlander. How is the focus throw on the Sony? I’ve read that it’s a bit small/short and not easy to work accurately in 1:1? What are your experiences here? The Voigtlander has a very large/long focus throw (not handy for portraits/etc., but better for macro 1:1 (?).

IMHO, the 90mm Sony still remains the class leading option for hardcore macro on Sony FE. I still have lots of respect for the 110mm V. (judging by the reviews

same here....judging by reviews and user experiences. Unfortunately there’s no place here, where I could try both (especially the Voigtlander).

if I was to go fully manual, I d be tempted by the Laowa option (e.g. 2.5- 5x) to get that extra magnification

I’ve looked at the Laowa as well, but I don’t like the fact that it has no electronic contacts and so no communication with camera at all. With the Voigtlander camerasettings (f- stop) is visible and I can use focus peaking as well in MF. With 60Mp in my A7RIV, I can crop quite a bit .

Thnxs

AZheaven wrote:

mujana wrote:

AZheaven wrote:

I'd buy the Voigtlander in a heartbeat for macro. But with manual focus only I will have to pass. My eyes are not what they used to be. The Sony 90mm is now high on the list, unless Tamron or Sigma comes out with a FE version. As for the current Sigma I'm not a fan of the zoom focusing and focal length.

I've tried manual focusing with my Sony 24-105 and Tamron 70-180 on my A7III. And I'm not getting any sharp shots.

Thank you AZheaven. Why would you buy the Voigtlander in a heartbeat if your eyes would be better?

The Voigtlander is longer by 20mm. It's as sharp if not sharper than the Sony 90mm according to reviews. And AF can be used in many cases not just for some macro. I was just tested last week and have 20/20 vision. Distance vision is excellent. Close up is a totally different story however! I'm even increasing the font on my Mac to about 250%! So having a lens that autofocuses is my best friend!

Clear choice with you eye sight.

I used a bellows with my 50mm lens.

dkeller wrote:

I used a bellows with my 50mm lens.

That’s a possibility ofcourse, but I would like to also shoot handheld and I don’t like to take extra stuff like bellows/focussing rail/ etc. with me. Changing lenses should be easy and swift (for me).

That was way, way back there around 1968-70.  Went to the 50mm macro right after I moved to autofocus. Love the 90 macro now.

dkeller wrote:

That was way, way back there around 1968-70. Went to the 50mm macro right after I moved to autofocus. Love the 90 macro now.

Ok. I didn’t read well....thought that you still use 50mm and bellows.

Maybe stupid, but I wonder if and how AF-C / tracking in 1:1 would work with the 90mm

Can't really answer that as I haven't done 1:1 enough to say.  my A7ii isn't exactly the latest and best at track anyway.

dkeller wrote:

Can't really answer that as I haven't done 1:1 enough to say. my A7ii isn't exactly the latest and best at track anyway.

Ok. Thnxs.

mujana wrote:

thank you sanosai. Good, that you found your macro lens.

sanosai wrote:

mujana wrote:

I’m sorry to push this old thread up again, but I ‘m curious. What lens did you choose?
I’m in the same situation as you, and trying to choose between Voigtlander 110mm macro and Sony 90mm macro.

thank you

I went for the 90mm Sony (and have no regrets). I m not saying that I m consistently getting excellent results (this has to do with my lack of skills needed to fully exploit my gear!)

I just think that I couldn't live without OSS (as my a6300 doesn't have in body stabi), plus for the near to 1:1 distances, it is reported to still be the sharpest out there. Occasionally, when I manage to get everything right, I m really happy with results. Hopefully, as I up my skills, I ll get more consistent results!

I’m not experienced in macro photography either. I’ll have to learn. Beside that, I use the A7RIV with IBIS (but many more pixels to deal with...probably more critical to movement). But I can also crop to APS-C size.

I m not particularly impressed with AF speed of the 90mm. I am saying that in comparison to the 100-400GM which I ve rented for 3 days (it was blazzingly fast to focus, even on my a6300). But this is probably an unfair comparison because a) 90mm is not a GM, b) I don't have an a9 to draw safe conclusions about its speed c) it is said that pure macro lenses aren't the fastest in terms of AF performance. Also, as I get close to 1:1 range, its really struggling to focus at all (so I have to switch to MF). Luckily, I don't use AF too often, so I m not really impacted by this.

that seems to be the major difference between the Voigtlander and the Sony (MF/AF). I will probably not use a macro lens for portraits (have my Batis 85 for that), or anything other than macro and slide copying. Now if the AF is of less or no use in macro photography, then I could as well buy a true MF lens like the Voigtlander. How is the focus throw on the Sony? I’ve read that it’s a bit small/short and not easy to work accurately in 1:1? What are your experiences here? The Voigtlander has a very large/long focus throw (not handy for portraits/etc., but better for macro 1:1 (?).

IMHO, the 90mm Sony still remains the class leading option for hardcore macro on Sony FE. I still have lots of respect for the 110mm V. (judging by the reviews

same here....judging by reviews and user experiences. Unfortunately there’s no place here, where I could try both (especially the Voigtlander).

if I was to go fully manual, I d be tempted by the Laowa option (e.g. 2.5- 5x) to get that extra magnification

I’ve looked at the Laowa as well, but I don’t like the fact that it has no electronic contacts and so no communication with camera at all. With the Voigtlander camerasettings (f- stop) is visible and I can use focus peaking as well in MF. With 60Mp in my A7RIV, I can crop quite a bit .

I can't accurately commend on the focus throw, as I haven't had any other macro lens for comparison. Getting close towards 1:1 is a bit challenging, but to me this is due to the fact it uses focus by wire. Although very good as implementation, it could never match a buttery-smooth mechanical focus in my opinion. I was thinking that I might opt for a guide to attach on the focusing ring. That became more apparent to my few focus stacking attempts, where I need to be able to move in 1mm steps for taking each shot (it's really hard!)

Good point about the lack of electrical contacts in the Venus options. Certainly a plus for the Voigtlander in that respect - although I would have preferred to be able to achieve at least 2:1 ...

Also, another drawback of the Voigtlander is that it extends...that will make things more challenging, especially as you get closer to 1:1, but yet again some have learn to live with it. It's a matter of practice/perssistence I guess!