Macro Lens vs stabilized lens

[matrosov]

Good evening. As I am looking around at lenses and how they work and what they do. I notice that some third party manufacturers have a Macro version of the same lens without stabilization and others have have stabilized macro versions but at significant price hike. So out of curiosity which makes a more versatile lens a macro that has no stabilization or non-macro that is stabilized?.

As usual thank you for the education.

 

[dxqcanada]

Depends ... I shoot both hand-held and with tripod with my macro.
With tripod I do not use stabilizer ... when hand-held, I do want that feature (lower shutter speed to push up DoF). Since I do more hand-held, I will want a lens that has it ... though my Sony has stabilization on sensor (have to remember that both OS and SS on is not a good thing).

 

[greybeard]

If you plan on using it for hand held pics of bugs etc., VR is a very good thing. If you are using a tripod, then it is not necessary. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

 

[Overread]

Stabilization is a boon but not a must have.

It's also important to note that stabilization systems in lenses work in the vertical and horizontal planes (relative to the glass inside). That works for most photography subjects because that's the most common sway of your body; whilst any minor backward/forward motion of the body is marginal at best and can be handled by the AF.

However for macro back/forward sway is a very significant element of the handshake; and because AF doesn't work all that well for macro you will likely be in manual focus and thus it can't help. So whilst stabilization helps it won't stop all handshake elements being a problem.

Also the effect of handshake is more pronounced at closer distances so the X number of stops the stabilization gives (which is only ever a rough estimation and assumes good shooting posture) reduces for macro distances.


The only lens on the market that does this differently is the Canon 100mm macro L version which has a back/forward element to its stabilization system. Even then its still only a boon; not a must have.


If you can afford it then the stabilization is a nice feature to have; if you can't afford it then don't sweat it. Also if you don't have a flash I'd say lens+flash beats lens with stabilization - for macro. Because you will likely want to have the help of flash for lighting (again you don't need it - many can shoot great macro photos without flash; but it certainly helps a lot )

 

[matrosov]

So what I am hearing that if I am in a market for a lens and can only afford to spend on a macro without stabilization on non-macro with stabilization Macro without stabilization will offer me more versatility in what I will be able to accomplish in the long run. In other words all things being equal pick macro over stabilization. Correct?

 

[Overread]

Well that depends if you want to shoot macro or not.
Macro lenses tend to have slower AF than regular lenses and whilst their close focusing ranges have very fine manual focus control (small turns of the focus wheel for small shifts in focus) their regular distances are a bit less fine (small changes result in a bigger shift of focus).

Wht lenses are you looking at?

 

[matrosov]

Thanks Overread. I am looking for a walkaround 70-200 nikon mount lens. Since I'm just getting started I don't have a set preference in a subject so the idea is that I'll be able to take picture of the kids in the park one minute and some architecture or nature shots the next. I understand that with such a broad interest I will not be able to get the best quality in anything, but at this point my lack of skill is the biggest quality barrier. I was looking at Tamrons and noticed that some 70-200 are macros and no VR and others were VR with not macros and of course there were macro's and VR together but out of my budget range. So I"m trying to go for maximum versatility I think that water droplets on a blade of grass are super cool to try to shoot but if that macro ability and no VR hinders everything else then I might have to give up on that idea.

 

[astroNikon]

You may want to be *very* specific on which lenses you are looking at.
Just because they are made doesn't mean that the IQ is high, or this or that.
If you can provide a list people can then give you the "goods" and the "bads" about specific lenses.

And as mentioned VR /OS /IS varies dependent upon the lens.
And also provide a budget amount as you are referencing it but only *you* know it and every one else is left guessing. For some $300 is a lot, whereas others $2,000 is considered a lot.

Also which camera body do you have. That may play into lens/ camera compatibility too.

 

[matrosov]

You may want to be *very* specific on which lenses you are looking at.
Just because they are made doesn't mean that the IQ is high, or this or that.
If you can provide a list people can then give you the "goods" and the "bads" about specific lenses.

And as mentioned VR /OS /IS varies dependent upon the lens.
And also provide a budget amount as you are referencing it but only *you* know it and every one else is left guessing. For some $300 is a lot, whereas others $2,000 is considered a lot.

Also which camera body do you have. That may play into lens/ camera compatibility too.

Sorry about that. Keep forgetting that my awesome telepathic powers do not work on internet . Camera body I have is Nikon D5100. Lenses that I've been looking at are Tamron SP 70-200/2.8 Di VC USD and what I am guessing its macro counterpart SP AF70-200 F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro. I was looking at slightly used so let's say budget 1K max. I think I saw similar story with Sigma lenses but cannot figure out model numbers right now.

 

[table1349]

Here are a couple of review of the lens you're looking at.
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens Review
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro review

Keep in mind with a magnification of only .32 that is really not considered a Macro lens. The general consensus on a true macro lens is 1 to 1 magnification or greater.

 

[greybeard]

I don't own the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO but, from what I have read, the MACRO is just SO-SO. If you are wanting it for serious macro setups, I think you would be better off with a dedicated macro lens like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It doesn't have IS but this type of work usually uses a tripod so IS isn't needed. If you are wanting it for hand held closeups of bugs and the like, then IS/VR comes in handy. The Tamron 70-200 you are considering looks like a pretty descent non-VR zoom but the macro option is pretty much an after thought. I personally use a Nikon 105 f/2.8 macro with VR. It will work with pretty much any Nikon camera, focuses to 1:1 and has IS/vr. It is good for MACRO, closeups, and FF portrait work.

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di LD [IF] macro - Full Format Review / Lab Test - Sample Images & Verdict

 

[astroNikon]

To add, the "macro" of that lens is not a true macro, but merely the ability a minimum focusing distance of 0.95m for a reproduction ratio of 0.32x. Thus not a true macro but just close focusing distance.

both lenses though do have their own focus motor.
With your d5100 it requires the Lens to have a built-in focus motor for AutoFocus tasks.

 

[dunfly]

Do you really need a macro lens? From your description of what you are taking pictures of "kids in the park one minute and some architecture or nature shots the next", it doesn't seem to indicate you need a macro lens. Unless you what to take closeups of ants, go with a regular zoom lens, it would be a lot less expensive. If you are looking at a 70-200 lens, stabilization is a must unless you shoot only high shutter speed or with a tripod.

 

[KmH]

VR is a very good thing.

In some shooting situations.

Nikon VR explained

The first and most important rule of VR is this: never turn VR on unless it's actually needed.
Yes, this rule flies in the face of what most everyone in the world seems to do and what Nikon implies with their advertising and marketing. The simple fact is that VR is a solution to a problem, and if you don't have that problem using VR can become a problem of its own.

Rule #2: VR should normally be off if your shutter speed is over 1/500.

 

[TCampbell]

One more thing about image stabilization and macro. Lighting is often tricky when shooting macro ... particularly because at very close focusing distances the depth of field gets extremely shallow. So you might want to shoot at a much higher f-stop. But that creates a new problem whereby you may not actually have adequate light to shoot at, say, f/22.

If you're really shooting "macro" (close-up) photography, you can use a flash but a typical pop-up flash may have a problem with the lens itself putting a shadow on your subject. A shoe-mounted flash might get around this, but now you've got a bright flash up top and nothing lighting the underside and you may have much harsher shadows than you want.

You can get a "ring light" flash that goes around the lens. This produces flat lighting, but the advantage is that it's all-around light. But what's more, you can now shoot at the max flash-sync speed for your camera and (probably at least 1/200th for most cameras, I think the slowest flash sync speed I've seen in recent years is 1/160th which is still plenty fast for hand-held shots.) At that speed, hand-held shots are no problem and you don't need image stabilization.