Best macro lens (any brand)

[JustJazzie]

I'm thinking a macro lens is in my future, but I really know nothing about them or about macro photography in general. At first I was just gonna get the 30mm macro made for my camera, but the. I remembered that AF wouldn't be super important for macro shots since I use dmf and focus peaking anyways. So what's a great, affordable macro lens, hopefully with a manual aperture ring since it will have to go on my camera with an adapter. Or should I just go with the sony?

 

[EOV]

From the little I know about macro you don't want anything less than 60mm with 90-105mm being more preferred. Those lengths allow you a little more space between you and the subject. I hope people with more experience chime in.

 

[Overread]

What camera system are you using?
What rough budget do you have
What kind of macro shots are you thinking of taking?

 

[manaheim]

I've used the 150mm Sigma and the 105 Nikkor. I considered the Sigma very seriously. It's a beautiful lens with an extra 45mm for the same cost. In the end I decided the Sigma was a little too close for what I was likely to work on. I was also a little concerned about the coating on the lens. It "seemed" fragile, but honestly that's a pretty lame position for having used the lens a couple weeks and not actually scratching it or anything.

Ultimately I took the "safe" route, and bought the Nikkor.

 

[JustJazzie]

Overread: I'm using the sony nex7....will upgrade to another sony emount to fe mount in the future, but I can get pretty much any adaptor for it. No real budget. But I would probably say I'm comfortable in the under $500 range. The Sony was $300, so I guess what's where I was headed. I really don't know what I plan to shoot with it. Just general little things. I've had fun playing with it in the past. Crystals up close, some bugs, jewelry maybe? I'm just a hobbiest, so I don't need any professional quality weather sealing or whatnot. Nothing fancy, just a lens with some good quality glass and manual adjustments,

 

[JustJazzie]

I suppose I should edit the title to say "best bang for your buck macro lens" it's pretty obvious the "best" isn't in my future. ;-)


think I would be happy with extension tubes??

 

[tirediron]

I suppose I should edit the title to say "best bang for your buck macro lens" it's pretty obvious the "best" isn't in my future. ;-)


think I would be happy with extension tubes??

Extension tubes are a great option, BUT... they work with best with a fast, medium focal-length lens, so if you have a 50 or 85 1.8, you'd do well, but if your fastest is a 55mm f3.5, not so much as there's a lot of light loss when using long extensions. T

 

[TheFantasticG]

I was going to say you'd be best of with tubes or a used Tamron 90mm 2.8 II at most. I suggest starting with tubes.

 

[pgriz]

I am using the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro lens Construction is plastic, AF is not particularly fast. However, optical quality is excellent, on par with the Canon 100mm macro. Price is a lot cheaper than the Canon. For macro work, the focus is done manually in almost all situations. 90mm at full extension (1:1 ratio) has the focus plane about 3 inches in front of the lens. At that magnification, the DOF is extremely thin, so aids that help get decent photos are:
1) Tripod,
2) focusing rail,
3) remote shutter release.

Some people can do macro shots without those, especially if chasing bugs around plants or on the ground, but it takes a lot of practice, skill and luck.

Using a fairly high shutter speed is almost necessary because all movements (camera and/or subject) are magnified with resulting blurring. And a high shutter speed, combined with a high f/stop (f/11 or f/16) for getting adequate DOF means that you need light, lots of it. So usually, I have a ETTL flash, on a bracket, connected via a hot-shoe extension cord, providing the light. Depending on the subject, I may have more than one flash arranged around the subject.

One of the ways you can work around the very thin DOF, is to use image stacking, in which a series of images is combined, with the software picking out the sharpest bits from each image, to produce a "synthesized" image containing mostly the sharp bits. For that to work, it really requires that the camera is kept perfectly still, and the plane of focus is adjusted by using a focusing rail. Adjusting the plane of focus using the focusing ring doesn't work well because that also changes the magnification. So in practice, you set the lens extension at the magnification you want to have, set the camera on the focusing rail at the nearest (or farthest) point, and then incrementally move the camera bit by bit, taking a photo at each position. It is not uncommon to have a stack of up to 200 images. Of course, this doesn't work if the subject moves, so it is really used only for dead (insects), inanimate, or very slow-moving subjects (like plants).

Edit: I don't know if the Tamron comes in a Sony mount, but being a third-party lens, I am fairly confident that it must.
Edit 2: yes, it does: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330645-USA/Tamron_AF272M700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html

 

[Derrel]

I suppose I should edit the title to say "best bang for your buck macro lens" it's pretty obvious the "best" isn't in my future. ;-)

Tamron 90mm AF-SP Di. Tokina 100mm f/2.8i AT-X Pro. Those two are probably considered the best value proposition in normal, short-telephoto length macros. Macro lenses are one category where it's almost always a good idea to buy a used one, since they are very often bought, tried out, then shelved, then ultimately traded in or sold on consignment due to lack of use/boredom with macro. A macro is a specialty lens for most people, not a workaday lens; I've seen 20- to 35 year-old macro lenses that looked and felt like brand NEW lenses...and I swear it's because they'd been used for like a week, then stowed away.

 

[table1349]

The one thing you didn't define is what sort of macro. Macro is not macro is not macro. There are different forms just as there is for all other photography. For, bugs, flowers, etc I love the Canon 100mm f2.8. 100mm is a good general focal length for quite a bit of macro work. However for small - very small objects I much prefer the MPE - 65. At 5X magnification you can actually magnify a pimple on a gnats butt.

Granted doesn't help on your Sony, but it does help if you pick the lens best suited for the particular application.

 

[manaheim]

Yeah, I barely use mine. I use it more for taking portraits than anything.

 

[table1349]

I use my 100 quite a bit. The MPE-65 was a unique deal. It was the one and only time I did some piece work. Friend of mine needed 1/2 dozen very close detailed shots of some very small circuits on a circuit board that his company makes. Price for doing the 6 shots. He bought the MPE-65. Profit for taking the photos. I got to keep the MPE-65. We were both real happy.

 

[Derrel]

You mentioned extension tubes, but did not mention any of the high-quality close-up lenses, like those made by Raynox, or the Canon 250-D and 500-D, or the older, discontinued Nikon 5-T and 6-T. These are typically, two-element achromatic lenses, which can yield VERY good image quality when used on the right lenses. You might look into the two-element close-up lenses a bit. I've seen some GREAT bug pics done using Raynox accessories.

Here is the third of my four very-first-ever test frames using the Nikon 6-T reverse-mounted on the front of the old, Nikon 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S manual focus lens. Shot outdoors on my patio, hand-held with the lens wide-open, at f/5.6 at 1/200 second. There's not much depth of field, so I leaned forward and backwards and when I saw the weird little "lines" on the side of the paint brush bristles, I fired. This brush is 1/2 almost to the millimeter, one full inch across the widest spot at the tips of the bristles. I got the idea from this lens review: Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount: Telephoto

"The real surprise of the 100-300, however, comes when you put a close-up lens onto its front threads. I employed my standard Nikon 6T (reverse-mounted) and was absolutely floored by the high quality close-ups produced by this combination. High image sharpness and contrast, perfectly flat field, and virtually no CA are features you associate with an expensive Micro-Nikkor, not a makeshift combination of a achromatic attachment and a consumer zoom lens. Food for some real thoughts."



Full-uncropped image, one-click Lightroom processing, Nikon Default Standard

And here's a big crop-in on the same frame:



As Bjorn says, the Nikon 6T close-up filter produced basically no chromatic aberration, and the look is nice and smooth. I KNOW there are a lot of compact P&S macro enthusiasts using the fine 2-element achromatic filters/lenses made by Raynox and by Canon. These older Nikon 5-T and 6-T filters are hard to find, and kind of expensive. I happened to see the 6-T at Pro photo Supply in the used bin for $45 a couple years ago, which was well below the typical KEH.com selling price, so I bought it, but only got around to trying it last Sunday, five days ago, and I only shot 4 frames, then the phone rang.

 

[ruifo]

The newer Sigma 105mm OS is great. Many reviews put it to the top 1/2 in the 105mm segment.

here a topic about it:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...sigma-105mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-1-1-macro.html