What is everyone using for Macro lenses?

[AllardR]

Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X. Due to the relatively low DOF I'm not a big macro fan. I use this lens with a Leofoto MP-1505 macro slider, tripod, macro tent and additional light sources. And - oh horror - focus stacking. As an amateur geologist I use this combination for photographing in full DOF the surfaces of the rocks I found on my field trips.

 

[iain clyne]

up till now I have used my 200-600mm

 

[dragonsdreams]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

Without a TC it's basically half macro. With the 1.4x they say it's 0.7. With the 2x it's 1:1.

So yes, you need the 2x for full 1:1 macro.

 

[Cαscαdian]

I have several ways to play. I have E-mount extension tubes, a pk-E adapter for my old Sigma 50/2.8 macro, and I have a Minolta AF 50/2.8 RS macro plus EA4. I hope to try the variants and discard one or two soon.
Native macros are above my pay pension grade.

 

[Clix Pix]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

I use the 70-200mm G f/4 which is more specifically geared to shooting macro images . It has become one of my favorite lenses for walking around outdoors and capturing flowers and such.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I use the 70-200mm G f/4 which is more specifically geared to shooting macro images . It has become one of my favorite lenses for walking around outdoors and capturing flowers and such.

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

 

[AlphaWorld]

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

Both will do the trick, but I just sold the 70-200 f/4 G II, and I’m keeping the 90mm f/2.8 ( partly because It’s f/2.8 at 1:1, whereas the 70-200 is f/8 at 1:1).

If you like the 70-200 f/2 G II, it’s a perfectly good choice. For flowers, where you rarely need more than 2:1, it adds the convenience of zoom.

 

[Clix Pix]

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

Depends upon the situation. If I am shooting a flower indoors (which I often do during wintertime and/or bad weather other times of the year) the Sony 90mm f/2.8 is my lens of choice. This lens actually probably has been my most-used in the years I've been shooting Sony FF!!

When going outdoors to shoot, I find that I prefer the 70-200mm f/4 macro because it gives me more reach in situations where I otherwise would experience difficulties. I'm short (5'1) and when I want to shoot blossoms on a tree sometimes I just can't reach adequately with the 90mm. I have been more than happy with this lens in the year or so that I've had it. Definitely a "keeper"!