What is everyone using for Macro lenses?

[FowlersFreeTime]

I'm thinking to start a thread, which could be pinned for future reference, to list and discuss macro lenses for Sony E-mount. Yes, today is a slow day at work.

APSC
I know for APSC we can use FE lenses, but there is at least one Sony APSC Macro lens and a bunch of 3rd party manual lenses:

• SONY SEL30M35, 30mm, f/3.5, 1:1, Minimum Focusing Distance (MFD) 9.5cm
• Laowa 60mm, f/2.8, 2:1, MFD 17cm (?), manual lens
• Pergear 60mm macro lens belongs here because it has bad vignetting on full frame cameras. 60mm, f/2.8, 2:1, MFD 19cm, Manual lens
• Brightin Star 60mm macro looks to be a cheap(er) copy of the Pergear lens, with same specs.
• 7artisans 60mm macro, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 17.5cm, manual lens

Full Frame
I know there are probably a few FE lenses I missed...

• SONY SEL50M28, 50mm, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 16cm
• SONY SEL90M28G, 90mm, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 28cm
• SONY SEL70200G2, 70-200mm, f/4,
  • 1:2, MFD 26cm (at 70mm)
  • 1:2, MFD 42cm (at 200mm)
• Sigma 70mm macro, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 25.8cm
• Sigma 105mm macro, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 29.5cm
• Tamron 20mm Di III OSD M f/2.8, 1:2, MFD 10.9cm
• Tamron 24mm Di III OSD M, f/2.8, 1:2, MFD 11.9cm
• Tamron 35mm Di III OSD M, f/2.8, 1:2, MFD 15cm
• [NEW] Tamron 50-300mm, f/4.5 - f/6.3,
  • 1:2 and MFD 22.1cm (at 50mm)
  • 1:3 and MFD 90cm (at 300mm)
• Tokina FiRIN 100mm macro, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 30cm
• Samyang/Rokinon 100mm macro, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 30cm, manual lens
• Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm, f/2, 1:2, MFD 30cm, manual lens
• Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 110mm, f/2.5, 1:1, MFD 35cm, manual lens
• IRIX 150mm Macro Dragonfly, f/2.8, 1:1, MFD 34cm, manual lens

So yeah, help me populate the list and share your Macro lens experiences!

 

[Doug Herr]

Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm f/2

• ILCE-7RM3
• Voigtländer 65mm F/2 Macro Apo-Lanthar asph. (Sony E)
• 65.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM3
• Voigtländer 65mm F/2 Macro Apo-Lanthar asph. (Sony E)
• 65.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM3
• Voigtländer 65mm F/2 Macro Apo-Lanthar asph. (Sony E)
• 65.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 400

 

[iamdlewis]

I have both the Sony 50mm and 90mm. Both are very sharp but are a little slow to focus. The 90mm needs an update, it is now the oldest Sony lens with no gen 2 but I still really like it.

50mm

• ILCE-7RM4
• Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro (SEL50M28)
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 8/10 sec
• ISO 100

90mm

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 2000

 

[iain clyne]

I have to be honest and say I don’t use a macro lens, I tend to take shots of bugs etc at 600mm on my 200-600mm.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I have to be honest and say I don’t use a macro lens, I tend to take shots of bugs etc at 600mm on my 200-600mm.

I have to admit, my attempt to use my 70-300 that way (chasing dragonflies) is why I'm now thinking about getting another dedicated macro lens (longer than my 30mm)

 

[Slug]

As previously discussed I use Sigma 105 2.8 macro lens for most of what I do, however when I need to carry a general purpose outfit on a bush-walk where I have no idea what I'll encounter, I take a Panasonic FZ300 bridge camera with a +5 DHG Achromat macro lens in my pocket.
It screws into the filter mount and turns the outfit into a very good macro outfit very quickly with no excess weight or extra bits to carry. I use the camera's own flash and just need to be careful when I'm very close to the subject that the lens doesn't cast a shadow on it when the flash fires. A little wrap over the flash works as a diffuser.

Picture of Flying Duck orchids from FZ300 with Achromat. +5

• DMC-FZ300
• N/A
• 17.4 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 400

 

[Richard A]

My Tamron 50-400 offers 1:2 macro at the 50mm end but you have to get very close. I used it to take the photo of the dandelion that I posted recently. I was outside using natural light and couldn't get as close as I wanted without blocking the light on the subject. The Sony 90mm macro lens comes up second hand on eBay here often and usually go for less than A$1,000. I haven't seen a second hand Sigma macro on eBay here. For the amount of macro (better described as close up) I do, I will just stick to the 50-400 for now but it is quite unwieldy for that purpose.

 

[GvilleRick]

I have a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro but I haven't used it much. I really should pull it out more often. I have used my Sony 200-600 and 100-400 to shoot close up shots of insects.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have the Sony 90mm Macro - bought it quite a while ago.

I also have the 70-200mm f/4 G II, and both teleconverters.

To be honest, I don't shoot a lot of macro work.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Sony 90mm, which is epically sharp, and handles beautifully. I am considering getting the 70 200 f4 though, because it has macro capabilities and close focus of 10cm, which is remarkable.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Just an observation. The use of the term "macro" seems to have changed in it's definition of late. When I first got into macro, it involved extension tubes, reversing lenses, tripods and ring flashes.

The subjects were far smaller than all of the examples above and whilst taken at 1:1 (the ultimate aim), the following enlargement resulted in some fascinating magnification.

It was one of the most difficult of subjects where film was involved as there was no facility to preview the lighting.

Like I said, just an observation.

 

[spudhead]

200-600 macro lens

 

[David Evans]

Anyone used Laowa 60mm, f/2.8, 2:1 lens? Interested for photo work with 15mm model figures and tanks.

 

[spudhead]

Anyone used Laowa 60mm, f/2.8, 2:1 lens? Interested for photo work with 15mm model figures and tanks.

I had one, years ago and they are not the easiest lens to use, they were manual focus back when I had one.

 

[Clix Pix]

Ah, macro lenses!!! My favorites! Since I shoot FF bodies I have the 90mm f/2.8 Sony and the 50mm f/2.8 Sony, both of which were my first purchases when I was switching to Sony. I later added the Sony 100mm STF (Smooth Trans Focus) GM, which really isn't a macro lens but has wonderful bokeh and can focus reasonably close. Much later -- this past March, I also added Sony's 70-200mm f/4 Macro, which has rapidly joined the 90mm as one of my favorite lenses.

In addition, as has been noted, for E-mount Voigtlander also has some wonderful manual focus lenses, and two of those are macros: the 110mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro (you missed this one in your listing!) , and the 65mm 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Macro. Both are excellent! I don't use them as often as I should, but when I do I'm always pleased with my results.

I've been tempted at various times by the Laowa specialty ultra-macro lenses but haven't actually tried one yet. The one with the long "tube" lens is especially intriguing!

When I shoot macro I don't try doing focus stacking and all that, I just shoot my macros in the normal way. I like having some soft bokeh in the background or sometimes deliberately creating visual contrast by having the subject mostly in soft focus/gently blurred with just one small element in the subject displayed in sharp focus.

Oh, and also, yes, I, too, often will use a long tele to get macro/close-up results, too, and that is what I frequently have done with the 100-400mm lens when I'm out walking around with it. Haven't tried that with the 200-600mm lens, though, as usually I don't carry it on walkabouts. A long tele does make a great "macro" / close-up lens!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Just an observation. The use of the term "macro" seems to have changed in it's definition of late. When I first got into macro, it involved extension tubes, reversing lenses, tripods and ring flashes.

The subjects were far smaller than all of the examples above and whilst taken at 1:1 (the ultimate aim), the following enlargement resulted in some fascinating magnification.

It was one of the most difficult of subjects where film was involved as there was no facility to preview the lighting.

Like I said, just an observation.

It has and true macro is 1:1. Things have moved on with stacking etc (don't tell Ray it can be done in camera), but 1:1 is possible with most Macro lenses now, plus the 200 600 is very good at mimicking that.

 

[Slug]

Just an observation. The use of the term "macro" seems to have changed in it's definition of late. When I first got into macro, it involved extension tubes, reversing lenses, tripods and ring flashes.

The subjects were far smaller than all of the examples above and whilst taken at 1:1 (the ultimate aim), the following enlargement resulted in some fascinating magnification.

It was one of the most difficult of subjects where film was involved as there was no facility to preview the lighting.

Like I said, just an observation.

Quite true, I started with bellows with reversed lens, then moved to extension tubes for underwater work with Niconas cameras. A lot of what you see is more correctly called close-up rather than macro. Just another plug for Achromat close up lenses, attached to a bridge camera with a reasonable zoom facility, they give you the option of going from macro to close-up to the full range of the lens without too much trouble. They can also be stacked for the real tiny stuff!

 

[evacguy]

I don't have any macro lenses, but I like taking closeup shots, and cropping into closeups. What defines a macro shot? When does a close up become a macro? For example, are either of these images considered macro?

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1250

 

[Unframed Dave]

Personally, I wouldn't say so. I would call those close up shots.

Macro photography is generally defined as extreme close up, where the subject is actual size or greater on the sensor or less commonly these days, the negative.

 

[Richard A]

As mentioned above, true macro is 1:1 or greater. That is the subject is represented at its full size on the sensor (or film). For example, if you are photographing a bug which is 10mm long then it will be represented on the cameras sensor as 10mm long. So, you would have to have a flower smaller than 24mm x 36mm for it to be 1:1 macro on full frame. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

 

[Richard A]

Personally, I wouldn't say so. I would call those close up shots.

Macro photography is generally defined as extreme close up, where the subject is actual size or greater on the sensor or less commonly these days, the negative.

Touchez!

 

[evacguy]

As mentioned above, true macro is 1:1 or greater. That is the subject is represented at its full size on the sensor (or film). For example, if you are photographing a bug which is 10mm long then it will be represented on the cameras sensor as 10mm long. So, you would have to have a flower smaller than 24mm x 36mm for it to be 1:1 macro on full frame. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

So technically not possible to take a shot defined as a ‘macro shot’ of subjects greater than the size of sensor?

 

[Richard A]

Not if you are fitting it in the frame. It can be, of course, if you are getting in close to the centre of a flower or suchlike.

 

[evacguy]

Not if you are fitting it in the frame. It can be, of course, if you are getting in close to the centre of a flower or suchlike.

So the object (flower) can be larger than the sensor, but the subject of the photograph (component or part of the flower) is smaller than the sensor AND represented at 1:1 size or greater?

 

[Unframed Dave]

So technically not possible to take a shot defined as a ‘macro shot’ of subjects greater than the size of sensor?

Not in one exposure, no.

We are talking technical definition though.

Things have changed since macro was conceived. We now have affordable lenses that both magnify and have extremely close focus. Taking the shot is infinitely cheaper now as well.

When I did film macro, say, fungi in the woods, I would be using 400 or 800 iso film. This limited the size of enlargement possible, anything above an 8 x 10 would look like a painting using sand as a medium. Therefore to make an impact, a small subject had to fill the frame. The incredibly shallow depth of field was very hard to judge with an slr, so it was a very hit and miss process. Add to that, you had to wrestle with an angry octopus called Benbo and apply additional light with a somewhat unpredictable ring flash. Image stabilisation was still in the hands of NASA and the military.

Then of course most of us had to rely on Boots or Kwikprint to develop for us. It was an expensive and often unproductive exercise.

Things have changed, I can now reliably handhold at a fiftieth of a second while seeing my image in real life through the evf, relying on natural light and enlarge the image to almost any size I want.

I'd say most of what is being shown is more close up photography, but essentially the name doesn't matter.

True unedited macro photography can be stunning, I must get out and apply myself. Perhaps a competition theme, Tim?

 

[evacguy]

Not in one exposure, no.

We are talking technical definition though.

Things have changed since macro was conceived. We now have affordable lenses that both magnify and have extremely close focus. Taking the shot is infinitely cheaper now as well.

When I did film macro, say, fungi in the woods, I would be using 400 or 800 iso film. This limited the size of enlargement possible, anything above an 8 x 10 would look like a painting using sand as a medium. Therefore to make an impact, a small subject had to fill the frame. The incredibly shallow depth of field was very hard to judge with an slr, so it was a very hit and miss process. Add to that, you had to wrestle with an angry octopus called Benbo and apply additional light with a somewhat unpredictable ring flash. Image stabilisation was still in the hands of NASA and the military.

Then of course most of us had to rely on Boots or Kwikprint to develop for us. It was an expensive and often unproductive exercise.

Things have changed, I can now reliably handhold at a fiftieth of a second while seeing my image in real life through the evf, relying on natural light and enlarge the image to almost any size I want.

I'd say most of what is being shown is more close up photography, but essentially the name doesn't matter.

True unedited macro photography can be stunning, I must get out and apply myself. Perhaps a competition theme, Tim?

Thanks Dave and Richard, I’m just trying to get my head around the definition. So in my second photograph if I cropped into the centre of the photograph a bit more so that the centre components were represented in the frame at 1:1 or greater it would technically be a macro? Or does the fact it has to be cropped in post disqualifies it from being macro?

 

[Unframed Dave]

Again, we're talking semantics.

It could be called a macro photograph, but I wouldn't call it macro photography. I have no qualification to make that call though, merely my opinion.

If you look at some truly exceptional macro images, you would be seeing individual pollen grains in the shot. That can only be achieved by a suitable lens which is not the same thing as cropping.

Don't get me started on focus stacking.

 

[Unframed Dave]

The Wikipedia page has some great examples.

Macro photography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Richard A]

Don't get me started on focus stacking.

You don’t like focus stacking?

 

[Unframed Dave]

You don’t like focus stacking?

I'm very moderate really!