What is everyone using for Macro lenses?

[Tim Mayo]

My Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro lens has seen plenty of use but these days its collecting dust. I'm not big into true macro but do like close-ups of various critters and like many find that the right telephoto lens can work well here especially for flighty subjects. If I'm going out to shoot bugs or flowers today then it will be the Sony FE 70-200 F4 G Macro lens that comes with me which has a 0.5x magnification but increases to 1x if you add the 2x tele. It's a very versatile and lightweight lens. You've probably already seen some shots from it in our image thread.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

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.

Thank you for that, I didn't have it on my list.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

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!

Thank you, I added that Voigtlander to the list. Cheers!

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

This has turned into a fascinating topic!
When I bought the Sony E 30mm Macro, I didn't even truly understand the difference between 1:1 and 1:2. I would say the lens works for me because all I really want to do is take "close-ups" of flowers. It's only when I venture into taking pictures of the bugs on those flowers that I start to wish for more reach with a close minimum focusing distance and 1:1. Not sure its worth spending another $600-1200 to sate my curiosity.

 

[Richard A]

Might be useful to look into a "close up" lens for occasional use. Plenty of people still use them. I probably would have one somewhere but would be too small for the lenses I have now.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Might be useful to look into a "close up" lens for occasional use. Plenty of people still use them. I probably would have one somewhere but would be too small for the lenses I have now.

If Tamron ever updates their OSD lenses (with the RXD focusing system maybe?) then that could be a very solid set of everyday prime lenses with close-up capability.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I accept the 1:1 definition, if we are going to be be pedantic about it.

I have a 1:2 fully manual Tamron "macro" lens which therefore isn't really. I am a numeric dunce and have never understood why the ratio is expressed that way around. If the subject (1) is half size on the sensor (2), shouldn't that be 2:1? Is the ratio not life:sensor?

I was thrown out of the maths class as a no-hoper.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I accept the 1:1 definition, if we are going to be be pedantic about it.

I have a 1:2 fully manual Tamron "macro" lens which therefore isn't really. I am a numeric dunce and have never understood why the ratio is expressed that way around. If the subject (1) is half size on the sensor (2), shouldn't that be 2:1? Is the ratio not life:sensor?

I was thrown out of the maths class as a no-hoper.

I haven’t looked at the definition, but perhaps look at it this way: something will appear 1mm high on the sensor if it’s 2mm high in real life. With 1:1, something will be 1mm high on the sensor if it’s 1mm high in real life.

You may not have seen them, but there are lenses with even greater magnification, like 5:1 - something will appear 5mm high on the sensor if it’s 1mm high in real life - these are 5x macro lenses (tempted to call them “microscope” lenses )

If you think of the colon as a /, then you’ll get the right idea: 1:1 = 1/1 = same size. 1:2 = 1/2 or half size, as you say. And 5:1 = 5/1 or 5 times life size!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If you think of the colon as a /, then you’ll get the right idea

Thank you. Yes, this seems to be how it is used, and, as I really was innumerate enough to get thrown out of the maths class, I suppose I shouldn't argue.

I have seen the higher magnification macro lenses. Laowa is a brand that comes to my mind when I think Macro, but I haven't met one in real life.

I've done some experiments with extension tubes. A good way to explore macro at very low cost. My set even have contacts, so control/settings are communicated between lens/camera.

Does AF matter in macro? A friend's view (he uses the Sony 90) is that he "focuses" to the required ratio and then focuses by moving the lens.

I love the idea of macro. In practice, I soon lose patience!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Thank you. Yes, this seems to be how it is used, and, as I really was innumerate enough to get thrown out of the maths class, I suppose I shouldn't argue.

I have seen the higher magnification macro lenses. Laowa is a brand that comes to my mind when I think Macro, but I haven't met one in real life.

I've done some experiments with extension tubes. A good way to explore macro at very low cost. My set even have contacts, so control/settings are communicated between lens/camera.

Does AF matter in macro? A friend's view (he uses the Sony 90) is that he "focuses" to the required ratio and then focuses by moving the lens.

I love the idea of macro. In practice, I soon lose patience!

AF in Macro work can be difficult. some people even use a tripod head with a worm gear so they can move the camera forward and back very precisely to get focus exactly where they want it. I looked at that, shrugged, and decided I wasn’t serious enough about macro

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

You don’t like focus stacking?

You weren't on here when there was a bit of a kerfuffle over it

 

[Richard A]

A kerfuffle over focus stacking? Ok...

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

You weren't on here when there was a bit of a kerfuffle over it

A kerfuffle over focus stacking? Ok...

The mind boggles! I hope the tripod spikes didn't get used

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

some people even use a tripod head with a worm gear

I think this is a really good idea. Even better is the fancier kind with stepper motor built in.

But, bottom line is... I just like taking snaps!

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

I use the Canon 180mm with the metabones adapter and my a1. Manual focus always for macro. Always with a tripod, of course.

• ILCE-7RM4
• #173 180/3.5
• 180.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/30 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

Is there a way to get the spider image larger without having to click on it?

thanks, artie

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Is there a way to get the spider image larger without having to click on it?

thanks, artie

Pretty spider (not something I usually say!)
When you upload an image, make sure to go the extra step to insert as full size. If you only upload it without inserting, I think it becomes a thumbnail.

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

Thanks, FFT. As a professional bird photographer since 1994, I love long focal lengths, even for macro. I do lots of flowers too.

with love, artie

ps: I own the following Sony lenses: 600mm f/4 GM, 400mm f/4 GM, 300mm f/4 GM, 70-200mm f/2.8 II GM. One a1 and two a9 iii bodies. You can learn a ton about nature photography on my blog at www.BIRDSASART-Blog.com.

 

[spudhead]

200-600 close up under 600kb and 1.7 mb from a1 raw file

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 400

 

[iamdlewis]

200-600 close up under 600kb and 1.7 mb from a1 raw file

The only issue with using the 200-600 is that the minimal focus distance is so long. I find when I try to do this that many times I just don't have the space. If you need a longer lens and want to do macro type stuff the 100-400GM is fantastic.
200-600 min focus = 2.4m or 94.5 inches
100-400 min focus = 0.98m or 38 inches

 

[spudhead]

The only issue with using the 200-600 is that the minimal focus distance is so long. I find when I try to do this that many times I just don't have the space. If you need a longer lens and want to do macro type stuff the 100-400GM is fantastic.
200-600 min focus = 2.4m or 94.5 inches
100-400 min focus = 0.98m or 38 inches

It wasn`t a serious reply David and yes I know the 100-400 is good for the same purpose, just a bit of fun

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

Two things. Close focus with the 200-600 at 600 is half of the MFD for the 600mm f/4. That is anything but long. I consider the 100-400 the worse lens Sony ever made. Try the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II lens with teleconverters.

 

[iamdlewis]

I consider the 100-400 the worse lens Sony ever made.

Since you are clearly in the minority for this statement why do you believe this?

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

It is decent for quasi macro stuff and as a landscape/bird-scape lens. But the zoom mechanism is horrific -- you practically need an oil filter wrench to zoom in or out. And the fact that the lens gets longer or shorter when you zoom makes it very difficult at best to use on a tripod. Just the facts The 70-200 II has great close focus, much better AF for birds in flight. It has internal focus so it does not change the length of the lens when you zoom (just like the 200-600). And everything above is true with either TC.

 

[iamdlewis]

It is decent for quasi macro stuff and as a landscape/bird-scape lens. But the zoom mechanism is horrific -- you practically need an oil filter wrench to zoom in or out. And the fact that the lens gets longer or shorter when you zoom makes it very difficult at best to use on a tripod. Just the facts The 70-200 II has great close focus, much better AF for birds in flight. It has internal focus so it does not change the length of the lens when you zoom (just like the 200-600). And everything above is true with either TC.

If that is your experience with the lens I can only assume that you had a lens that was broken in some way. The zoom can be set from too smooth to not stiff enough to keep the lens from creeping if you point it vertically, even with a skin on it that stiffens the zoom ring some. This is the same experience that the majority of people that I know that have or have reviewed the lens have. So if you needed some wrench to zoom your lens was broken.
I haven't used any of the 70-200s but I have gotten a chance to play with the 600GM and the focus speed of that and the 100-400GM are indistinguishable so I find it difficult to believe "much better" to be true.

 

[BIRDS AS ART]

If that is your experience with the lens I can only assume that you had a lens that was broken in some way. The zoom can be set from too smooth to not stiff enough to keep the lens from creeping if you point it vertically, even with a skin on it that stiffens the zoom ring some. This is the same experience that the majority of people that I know that have or have reviewed the lens have. So if you needed some wrench to zoom your lens was broken.
I haven't used any of the 70-200s but I have gotten a chance to play with the 600GM and the focus speed of that and the 100-400GM are indistinguishable so I find it difficult to believe "much better" to be true.

I have been photographing birds for 41 years. I was a Canon Explorer of Light for 19 years. I stand by everything that I have said. I was sure that my first 100-400 was broken so I sent it to Sony to be repaired.I paid $700.00. They sent it back to me and the zoom mechanism was still horrible. So I complained and they sent me a new lens. The zoom mechanism was still horrible. If you and everyone else here thinks that the zoom mechanism on the SONY FE 100-400 is satisfactory, that it there problem. It ain't.

Furthermore, AF at f/5.6 with the 400 cannot be as quick as AF with the 600mm f/4 because AF depends on light; all things being equal, AF at f/4 will always be faster than AF at f/5.6. Yes, folks can make great images with the 100-400, but it should me much better and feature internal focusing and a smooth zoom, just like the 200-600

 

[Cαscαdian]

I have a Minolta gen.1 Maxxum 50/2.8, but just the ea3 adapter so manual focus only. I have the featherweight 85/2.8 coming soon and was thinking an extension tube set might join the bag soon; the TTArtisan 50/2 or Sony 28/2 could also play along.

I'm better set in my µ43 gear, with the Oly 30 1.25:1 and a zuiko digital 70-300 that can do 1:2 in a pinch. The 30 can focus stack in-camera too.
Come to think of it, I bought x-tubes for it too and sold the 16mm, so a 10mm tube is around here somewhere..

edit - just remembered my PK extension tube, so my smc-m 50/2, 85/2 and 135/3.5 can play today with my pK-E adapter!

Here's the 135mm at f5.6 sent to phone, unprocessed.

 

[Unframed Dave]

If that is your experience with the lens I can only assume that you had a lens that was broken in some way. The zoom can be set from too smooth to not stiff enough to keep the lens from creeping if you point it vertically, even with a skin on it that stiffens the zoom ring some. This is the same experience that the majority of people that I know that have or have reviewed the lens have. So if you needed some wrench to zoom your lens was broken.
I haven't used any of the 70-200s but I have gotten a chance to play with the 600GM and the focus speed of that and the 100-400GM are indistinguishable so I find it difficult to believe "much better" to be true.

I have been photographing birds for 41 years. I was a Canon Explorer of Light for 19 years. I stand by everything that I have said. I was sure that my first 100-400 was broken so I sent it to Sony to be repaired.I paid $700.00. They sent it back to me and the zoom mechanism was still horrible. So I complained and they sent me a new lens. The zoom mechanism was still horrible. If you and everyone else here thinks that the zoom mechanism on the SONY FE 100-400 is satisfactory, that it there problem. It ain't.

Furthermore, AF at f/5.6 with the 400 cannot be as quick as AF with the 600mm f/4 because AF depends on light; all things being equal, AF at f/4 will always be faster than AF at f/5.6. Yes, folks can make great images with the 100-400, but it should me much better and feature internal focusing and a smooth zoom, just like the 200-600

You must have got a Friday lens. I just had a fiddle with mine. Set to the stiff end, it's quite, well, stiff. Set to the less stiff end, it isn't loose, but then you wouldn't want it to be. In use, I've never noticed an issue.

Yes, it would be nice if it were internal focusing.

Image quality wise, it's a cracking lens.

 

[Slug]

You must have got a Friday lens. I just had a fiddle with mine. Set to the stiff end, it's quite, well, stiff. Set to the less stiff end, it isn't loose, but then you wouldn't want it to be. In use, I've never noticed an issue.

Yes, it would be nice if it were internal focusing.

Image quality wise, it's a cracking lens.

Yes I love my 100-400 too. Hardly fair to compare to a 600 F4. Just look at the price difference!

 

[TerryL]

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
[/LIST]

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

I love Irix lenses.