Affordable Macro Lens Advice?

[FowlersFreeTime]

I'm looking at purchasing a pre-owned Sony 30mm Macro. My intent is flower and food photography, not really interested in chasing bugs (I live in Florida, most of them bite back LOL).

Pros:
Compact & lightweight
Autofocus
1:1

Cons:
30mm = 45mm full frame equivalent, so not that much magnification
Max aperture = f3.5

With current Sony rebates, I could get it new for $250 or I can go pre-owned for $190.

Then I remembered this thread: https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/meike-announce-new-apsc-60mm-f2-8-macro-lens.6103/
So the Meike 60mm Macro is also a possibility and costs $190 brand new.
Pros:
60mm = 90mm full frame equivalent
1:1

Cons:
Double the size of the Sony 30mm
no autofocus
quality?

What would you fine folks choose?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I'm not really a "macro shooter" either. I think I just want to be able to get in a bit closer sometimes. Like my orchid photos from earlier this month and some baking/cooking shots I am planning where I might want to demonstrate texture (without going overboard).
I think @Unframed Dave has the 30mm. Dave, are you happy with it?

 

[pointreyes]

Maybe try the 18-135 with a Raynox lens?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Unframed Dave]

I'm not really a "macro shooter" either. I think I just want to be able to get in a bit closer sometimes. Like my orchid photos from earlier this month and some baking/cooking shots I am planning where I might want to demonstrate texture (without going overboard).
I think @Unframed Dave has the 30mm. Dave, are you happy with it?

I do, or I did. My wife now has it. Like most of my stuff, I picked it up second hand for about a hundred pounds. For that sort of money, it's very good value. My only criticism of it is, that it takes very little to get flare into the image. I reckon about 50% of my shots with the sun out (quite rare in the uk) have some degree in them.

I now have the 90, which I use with my full frame camera. I've yet to do much with it. Busy catching up with travel that was cancelled during the pandemic.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Chris,
as a market cost beating offering, and as a Meike 100mm owner myself, the Meike lenses
generally have good build quality and are quite small and light...the 60mmm is around 300gms i
believe.

As a manual only lens, like nearly all of Meike offerings, and in line with the highest % of Macro
shooters lens generally, this should not be a drawback particularily for static flowers, food etc....

It has a 17.5 cm minimum focus distance so measured from your camera sensor your lens will
be very close to your subjects at 1:1......you might require subject lighting at 1:1 if ambient light
is low.

it has a 60mm focal length and offers options for 60mm portrait images also, albeit in manual
mode. Also as a manual lens with no camera/lens comms Exim data will not be available.

I understand it is a little soft at f2.8 but acceptably sharp from f4 to f16.

The aperture ring is not "clicked" so you may find that takes a little getting used to.

At $190 it is very good value and its small size/weight is convenient for travel

Hope this helps your decision making, there are a few youtube review videos online for this lens and
maybe worth a look before finally laying down the deniros .......

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I think I should mull this over a bit and watch some of those reviews. I honestly thought the Sony Lens would be my logical choice, but maybe not!

 

[iamdlewis]

I only have the Sony 90mm for FF but with what I do I can say that for indoor work I am 95% of the time in manual focus, for outdoor plant life I would say that I am manual focus unless the wind decides that it wants to be a pain. Insects I am 100% auto-focus. The 90mm is an F2.8 but I would be shocked if more than 15% of my macro images are taken at 2.8, most are going to be between 8 and 14.

You know that if you want to do macro with a longer lens you can always pickup some extension tubes for like $30 and go wide with the actual macro.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I only have the Sony 90mm for FF but with what I do I can say that for indoor work I am 95% of the time in manual focus, for outdoor plant life I would say that I am manual focus unless the wind decides that it wants to be a pain. Insects I am 100% auto-focus. The 90mm is an F2.8 but I would be shocked if more than 15% of my macro images are taken at 2.8, most are going to be between 8 and 14.

You know that if you want to do macro with a longer lens you can always pickup some extension tubes for like $30 and go wide with the actual macro.

Good points.
Yeah, I am not swayed by the f2.8 on the Meike lens, I just listed it as a "pro" based on specs alone. If I took macro shots at f2.8 there would be a lot of focus stacking in my future, and I don't want to increase my editing time as I am slow enough at that as is.

The autofocus entices me because of ease of use and wind when taking plant photos.

I DO happen to have some macro extension tubes gathering dust, so perhaps I could consider my long lens needs covered.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Hi Chris,
as a market cost beating offering, and as a Meike 100mm owner myself, the Meike lenses
generally have good build quality and are quite small and light...the 60mmm is around 300gms i
believe.

As a manual only lens, like nearly all of Meike offerings, and in line with the highest % of Macro
shooters lens generally, this should not be a drawback particularily for static flowers, food etc....

It has a 17.5 cm minimum focus distance so measured from your camera sensor your lens will
be very close to your subjects at 1:1......you might require subject lighting at 1:1 if ambient light
is low.

it has a 60mm focal length and offers options for 60mm portrait images also, albeit in manual
mode. Also as a manual lens with no camera/lens comms Exim data will not be available.

I understand it is a little soft at f2.8 but acceptably sharp from f4 to f16.

The aperture ring is not "clicked" so you may find that takes a little getting used to.

At $190 it is very good value and its small size/weight is convenient for travel

Hope this helps your decision making, there are a few youtube review videos online for this lens and
maybe worth a look before finally laying down the deniros .......

I'm going to watch some of those reviews I have queued up.
I'm also going to throw a 10mm macro extension on my sigma 56mm to see how I like that focal length.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I do, or I did. My wife now has it. Like most of my stuff, I picked it up second hand for about a hundred pounds. For that sort of money, it's very good value. My only criticism of it is, that it takes very little to get flare into the image. I reckon about 50% of my shots with the sun out (quite rare in the uk) have some degree in them.

I now have the 90, which I use with my full frame camera. I've yet to do much with it. Busy catching up with travel that was cancelled during the pandemic.

Good point about the flare. Does it come with a lens hood? Did that help?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Maybe try the 18-135 with a Raynox lens?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

This is interesting, and it seems a bit easier to use than the extension tubes I have.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

A Raynox lens, like anytime you put additional glass in front of your macro lens will tend to
Degrade your image compared to extension tubes for example( see multiple internet reviews
on this subject)

The Raynox lens will generally provide greater additional magnification however.....as always
It's a question of compromise whether you want image quality over depth of magnification...

On your extension tubes divide the focal length of your lens by the extension tube length...ie
For a 60mm lens and typical single set of extension tubes at 26mm you will achieve 1: 1.4
magnification over basic 1:1 macro lens magnification.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Does it come with a lens hood?

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Lens hood seems to be an additional accessory.....

Check out Michael Waddell's review video on Youtube for detailed field review....

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Also check out Christopher Frosts you tube review, if you want to get into more detailed due diligence review.....

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

From Christopher Frost's review it seems to come with a very funky lens hood, strange shape indeed.

 

[Gaz]

I’ve got a nice old tamron macro zoom I mounted to my A7iv and it provides beautiful manual focus results.

But, me with a new obsession means I eventually went out and bought Sony 90mm macro lens for macro autofocus.

After a month, I like the lens but use it as a walkabout, taking landscape portrait birds and macro. Defaulting to manual focus for macro.

I don’t regret the purchase, because I get a lot more use out of it than I would a dedicated macro lens.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm looking at purchasing a pre-owned Sony 30mm Macro. My intent is flower and food photography, not really interested in chasing bugs (I live in Florida, most of them bite back LOL).

Pros:
Compact & lightweight
Autofocus
1:1

Cons:
30mm = 45mm full frame equivalent, so not that much magnification
Max aperture = f3.5

With current Sony rebates, I could get it new for $250 or I can go pre-owned for $190.

Then I remembered this thread: https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/meike-announce-new-apsc-60mm-f2-8-macro-lens.6103/
So the Meike 60mm Macro is also a possibility and costs $190 brand new.
Pros:
60mm = 90mm full frame equivalent
1:1

Cons:
Double the size of the Sony 30mm
no autofocus
quality?

What would you fine folks choose?

"30mm = 45mm full frame equivalent, so not that much magnification"

This simply is not true. Every lens which does 1:1 macro gives you the same magnification - an object will appear on the sensor the same size as it is in real life. Something 12mm high will be 12mm high on the sensor - on a full frame sensor that's half the height of the image.

What you will find lacking on a 30mm 1:1 macro lens is working distance - you'll have to get awfully close to get to 1:1. A macro lens with more focal length will give you more working distance.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

"30mm = 45mm full frame equivalent, so not that much magnification"

This simply is not true. Every lens which does 1:1 macro gives you the same magnification - an object will appear on the sensor the same size as it is in real life. Something 12mm high will be 12mm high on the sensor - on a full frame sensor that's half the height of the image.

What you will find lacking on a 30mm 1:1 macro lens is working distance - you'll have to get awfully close to get to 1:1. A macro lens with more focal length will give you more working distance.

Thank you, that was helpful and I feel a bit sheepish to know I was comparing specs I didn't fully understand.

 

[Gaz]

Photographing insects, I found impossible on a wide focal length macro. They buzz off to quickly, unless you pin them down first . Any you’ll never get close.

I tried dragonflies this week and got about 1m away at best. Next time, I’ll use the Sony 135mm GM with subject tracking on, and maybe I can get one in flight from 2 or 3m. The 90mm macro lens doesn’t focus quick enough for that.

Dragonfly from 3m…

• ILCE-7M4
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/3.2
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 125

Snails were easy subjects though!

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 55924/44739201 sec
• ISO 125

Gaz

 

[iamdlewis]

Thank you, that was helpful and I feel a bit sheepish to know I was comparing specs I didn't fully understand.

In addition to what Tim said you will want to understand the depth of field difference between the focal lengths because it can make a big difference depending on the type of macro you want to do. If you are going to be setting up stuff indoors the wider lens might make more sense because it will give you more depth of field at the same aperture.

I checked there is no DoF calculator here so: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

 

[Clix Pix]

Years ago my first exposure to Sony digital photography was some ago now, the wonderful NEX 7. One of the lenses which I bought to use with that camera was the 30mm macro lens. Accustomed to longer length macros with my Nikon gear, I had more than a bit of difficulty with the 30mm macro and we never really quite got along. It was requiring that I get too physically close with it, and even when shooting flowers rather than insects, I found that lens problematic at times. That said, I sometimes got nice results, but.... As mentioned above, too, having to get in so close with it also did cause issues with the light so that sometimes I was cutting off the light source which was needed, not a good thing. I found that when I wanted to shoot macro that I went back to my Nikon gear, which at that time I still had.

Either the 50mm macro (which actually is not the greatest macro lens, either, being rather slow and hunts a lot, but when it nails the image it really does) or the outstanding 90mm macro are better choices (in my opinion) than the 30mm macro.

 

[AlphaWorld]

What Alpha is referring to is magnification from focus distance. It isn't going to change regardless of the sensor, which results in the same size subject. But there's something else to consider. Any lens is still going to result in a cropped image on that sensor, even though the magnification doesn't change. The result is less area around the subject. As an example, a 1:1 image on the FF sensor will leave space around a subject of a given size, where the top and bottom might be cut off on a crop sensor. Of course you can move back and get the entire subject, but then you lose the 1:1 magnification. This isn't a huge issue in practice, just something to be aware of. And of course a 60mm will still give 90mm FF FOV equivalence when you're not shooting macro.

The best focal length really depends on the intended use. I used an Olympus 30mm on my M-4/3. It had a 1.25:1 ratio, so the subject ended up 'larger than life'. It was perfect for scanning negatives to digital because of the close working distance and magnification. But what made it good for that made it not so great for close focusing insects.

A good reason to prefer a longer focal length for macro work is the “working distance“ - how close you have to be to the subject to achieve 1:1 macro. The longer the focal length, the longer the working distance. If you are photographing, for example, stamps, then it’s not an issue. If you are photographing dragonflies (at least, living ones not stuck on flypaper), it can make a huge difference.

A friend of mine has an old 200mm f/4 macro lens that he still uses to photograph bees and wasps. He really likes using it precisely because it means he is taking his photographs from further away

Do keep in mind that you are not obliged to use full 1:1 magnification - no one will point at your photo and say: “you only used 0.7:1 !!!”. You can shoot from further away and still get great images.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

You have all given me sound advice and I am reassessing my plans.