Solarflare
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,898
- Reaction score
- 395
There is none. Tons of macro lenses, and each is good for something.
- AF might be important if you try to shoot insects. The focus has to go extremely long ways to focus this closely, though. The Nikon AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro is popular for its fast focus, but its kind of too short for insects (not enough working distance).
- For non-moving subjects, one typically doesnt focus at all. You select whatever magnification you want, then you MOVE THE CAMERA instead of changing focus (since that would change magnification). Its also much faster to work this way, too.
- IS/VR might be important for handheld shots, especially since macro magnifies any camera movement AND because you typically close the aperture a lot, there isnt much light and thus you might want to use long shutterspeeds.
- 1:2 or 1:1 ? For example, the Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100mm is extremely sharp, but is "only" 1:2. IIRC the AF 55mm f2.8 also only has 1:2. Same for the PC-E 45mm f2.8 micro and PC-E 85mm f2.8 micro.
- In general, macro lenses are the sharpest lenses. But if you want to use them for portraiture, sharpness isnt that needed really (except for babies), and when you use them for macro, typically you want to stop them down because of the extremely shallow depth of field.
- Long focal lenght are useful for insects, but they make the lens a lot more expensive too.
- But if you want to shoot a baby, a shorter focal length like the AF 55mm f2.8 micro might actually be better.
- For product shots, a zoom like the old Nikon AF 70-180mm f4.5-5.6 micro might be ideal.
- What about extreme macro ? Canon has a lens (cant remember its name) of 65mm focal length that offers 1:1 to 5:1 macro (but cannot focus any further).
- Really Macro is a GLORIOUS place for Tilt/Shift lenses, especially for the tilting, because the extremely shallow depth of field. That would be for example the Nikkor PC-E 85mm f2.8 micro (only 1:2 macro)
- etc
On top of that, of course many people want to use their macro lens for example for portraiture as well, which makes non-macro considerations enter the picture.
So yeah, a TON of factors can give you all kinds of final decisions about what you want.
As the most popular macro, thats probably the Tamron 90mm. I read that the Sigma 105mm is quite good as a general lens; it has VR. THe original Nikon 105mm micro unfortunately is unpopular for certain uses because of too strong CAs.
Personally I would love to get a Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100mm with Autofocus and Image stabilization as the most general solution, but oh well, no such luck.
- AF might be important if you try to shoot insects. The focus has to go extremely long ways to focus this closely, though. The Nikon AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro is popular for its fast focus, but its kind of too short for insects (not enough working distance).
- For non-moving subjects, one typically doesnt focus at all. You select whatever magnification you want, then you MOVE THE CAMERA instead of changing focus (since that would change magnification). Its also much faster to work this way, too.
- IS/VR might be important for handheld shots, especially since macro magnifies any camera movement AND because you typically close the aperture a lot, there isnt much light and thus you might want to use long shutterspeeds.
- 1:2 or 1:1 ? For example, the Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100mm is extremely sharp, but is "only" 1:2. IIRC the AF 55mm f2.8 also only has 1:2. Same for the PC-E 45mm f2.8 micro and PC-E 85mm f2.8 micro.
- In general, macro lenses are the sharpest lenses. But if you want to use them for portraiture, sharpness isnt that needed really (except for babies), and when you use them for macro, typically you want to stop them down because of the extremely shallow depth of field.
- Long focal lenght are useful for insects, but they make the lens a lot more expensive too.
- But if you want to shoot a baby, a shorter focal length like the AF 55mm f2.8 micro might actually be better.
- For product shots, a zoom like the old Nikon AF 70-180mm f4.5-5.6 micro might be ideal.
- What about extreme macro ? Canon has a lens (cant remember its name) of 65mm focal length that offers 1:1 to 5:1 macro (but cannot focus any further).
- Really Macro is a GLORIOUS place for Tilt/Shift lenses, especially for the tilting, because the extremely shallow depth of field. That would be for example the Nikkor PC-E 85mm f2.8 micro (only 1:2 macro)
- etc
On top of that, of course many people want to use their macro lens for example for portraiture as well, which makes non-macro considerations enter the picture.
So yeah, a TON of factors can give you all kinds of final decisions about what you want.
As the most popular macro, thats probably the Tamron 90mm. I read that the Sigma 105mm is quite good as a general lens; it has VR. THe original Nikon 105mm micro unfortunately is unpopular for certain uses because of too strong CAs.
Personally I would love to get a Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100mm with Autofocus and Image stabilization as the most general solution, but oh well, no such luck.
I dont know much about that system .. IIRC theres a pretty good Minolta 100mm macro lens, though. With a Sony E to Sony A adapter, much of its functionality might be preserved.
