Macro Lens Recommendation

[brad_n]

<p>I am developing an interest doing some macro work: flowers and bugs. Not a lens in my bag is Macro! I'd like one general purpose macro lens (Is that a silly question?) that doesn't break the bank. Is there really any reason to have AF for Macro work? There's a wide range of lens lenths that are available with Macro. Is that a factor for the macro aspect?</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>This question comes up frequently, and the consensus is almost always the same: the Tamron 90/2.8 is one of the best values when it comes to macro. I don't own one yet, but it's on my wish list.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Check out this discussion for many more opinions on macro lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00S7RX</p>

<p> </p>

[kathyb]

<p>Macro lenses can be pricey. I have a Pentax K10D camera and the Tamron DI 90mm f/2.8 telephoto macro and I plan to buy the Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.8 macro limited autofocus lens. That one's pricey too. <br />A low cost alternative which I used until just recently was to use the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens with diopters. A set of 3 diopters will run you about $30.00 for a set. They are like magnifier filters that screw on to the front of the lens like a UV filter. They allow you to get really close to an object. No matter which set up I use, I manually focus the lens.</p>

[david_barts2]

<p>Diopters -- particularly the inexpensive kind that cost $30 for a set of 3 -- compromise image quality. I'd much rather use extension tubes for taking close-ups with non-macro lenses.</p>

<p>The big advantage of a dedicated macro lens over a set of tubes is convenience. No more removing the lens and changing the extension to change your focusing range. Well, no more of that until you try to focus closer than the macro lens can focus (which still makes for much less fiddling with extension tubes).</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>You might be interested in this and the following 2 sections for some tips. <a href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/shooting-macros-section-1-equipment/">Enticing the Light</a> .</p>

<p>Also you might give he Tamron 70-300mm a serious look. A low priced lens that produces good results at 1:2 (half life sized.</p>

[david_barts2]

<p>Oh, and macro lens length is chosen for the same reasons that lens lengths are chosen for non-macro work: to enable one to capture a given field of view at a given distance.</p>

<p>For taking photos of flowers, 100mm (which translates o 70mm on crop-sensor digital SLRs) is the classic length. It's typically just right for the distance one normally wants to be to such a subject -- neither too close (in which case you, the camera, or the tripod end up physically touching the plant and making it move) or too far (in which case things get awkward).</p>

<p>A 50mm macro (i.e. 35mm or so in the crop-sensor world) is handy for those times when you want to capture a slightly larger scene in tight quarters. A 150 or 200mm macro can be nice for narrowing the field of view to make for a less-distracting background, or when you can't or don't want to get close to the subject. Long macro lenses are particuarly useful for insect photography, since you can stay far enough away from them that you don't frighten them away.</p>

[stemked]

<p>The orginal manual adaptol Tamron 90mm f2.5 can be purchased for less than $160. It is a fantastic optic although it only goes 1:2. No, there isn't a lot of reason to have autofocus on a manual macro lens IMHO. </p>

<p>For insects the more room you give the better. That was why I picked up the 200mm f4 A*. I'm sure the lens is now worth a king's ransom, but it is fantastic for insect work.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>When you get into closeups, the distance from the forward lens element to the film plane will affect the required aperture; keep that in mind if you go for extension tubes or bellows. I mention those because, depending on what you have in your kit already, a bellows unit might be the answer for occasional macro use. They're also a good answer for daily macro use. If you are willing to put up with manual focus and aperture, they really are a good solution, economically; sometimes, optically, they might even be a little too powerful. They're a good solution because they can add an extra use to your existing kit. </p>

<p>A macro lens assembly will offer amazing convenience and good quality optics. Looking at what you have on hand already, and what you are expecting from the mechanics of a typical setup will be strong factors in making a good choice for you when it comes to macro and closeup optics. </p>

[garydem]

<p>i have the sigma 105mm macro. it works great. it also has AF which i use all the time. you will find that even your own body's slight movements are throwing off your scene with say a flower. if you were having to manually focus as well it would/could be a problem. but with AF and a macro lens you are only worrying about the framing of the scene. i have never had a missed shot due to focus because of AF on a macro lens. and that is after 39yrs of shooting with a macro lens.<br>

the length of the lens is important only in one vital area. the subject to camera distance. strength of the macro is not an issue since you can get to 1:1 with any of the good macros. for live subjects, specificaly bugs, you will need to get away from the subject or you will annoy or scare them and they will move. it is hard enough taking a pic of a butterfly without its flying off. likewise a crawling bug if it walks off on you. when i use my 105mm lens and take a pic of a say a flower in the 3x3inch or 4x4inch size, to fill the frame i am standing in the 2-3ft distance from the flower. the 2x2inch flower gets down to about 18inches. generally the 90-105mm macro is the general use one. it can do any job that you want without buying another macro lens. if however you were to shoot bugs on a steady basis then you would want to move to the 150-200mm size macro. the 35-70mm will also work though not as well for any shot in which the camera to subject distance is important, meaning bugs. also, the shorter macro have an additional problem, you own shadow. yours or the camera/lens. this quite often gets in your own shot because you are so close to your subject. this by and large disappears when you get to the 90-105 size. the smaller mm macros do have one advantage and that is they can double as that mm length lens if you wish to use in a normal way. the 35mm macro could double as a street lens very easily, while the 90-105mm could not.</p>

 

[stewart_epstein]

<p>Hi, I shoot macro often and on a very tight budget. There is a very inexpensive lens made by cosina years ago but available on ebay usu for $65-100 that is a real macro lens and is great image quality for the money. It was made in many mounts incl nikon, canon, pentax, etc. under the brands of Cosina, vivitar, promaster and phoenix. I have the phoenix variation. Tis photo was taken with my Pentax K10d and spot metered. Generally I try for f8-f11 to get some depth of field. I shoot at ISO 200 to maximize dynamic range. I have been very pleased with the lens though it does have some quirks: the barrel extends way out when focusing and the if you didn't know better you'd swear that while focusing that the barrel was gonna screw right out of the lens and fall on the ground and its noisy. However, its hard to argue with the IQ, especially for the money.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8925511-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Far-extending barrels are normal for macro lenses, though the questionable construction is probably more of a Cosina issue. I'm guessing that <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/368-cosina-af-100mm-f35-macro">this is the lens</a> you're referring to. There was a Pentax-labeled variant, the FA 100/3.5 macro which was probably just about the same except for Pentax SMC coatings.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Very recent shots with my new Tamron 90mm macro on my K20D.</p>

<p>Up close-<br>

<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/K20D1620edit.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And looking across the yard with the Tam 90mm.<br>

<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/K20D1580edit.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Previously I was mounting the Canon 500D magnifier filter on the end of my Tamron 18-250 zoom, and that gave very nice, and big results. Probably not as much 1:1 capability as the real macro lens, but... This is a good option if you already have a large zoom lens like the 18-250 or similar, at about 1/3 the cost of a real macro lens. I can even mount the mag. filter on the end of the macro lens to give a bit of a boost to the lens. And don't forget cropping on the computer, a "poor-man's" macro function.</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/CA77CU500D.html?searchinfo=canon+500d</p>

<p>Guy at the camera store that sold me the mag filter, he suggested doing it the right way the first time and just buy the macro lens. Well, that's what I eventually did... Oh, well. Both very good options, though.</p>

<p>Here's a crop of a photo from my 18-250/mag. filter combo, shot from my K100DS. Having more pixels from my K20D with the same photo would have permitted me even heavier cropping while maintaining good image quality.<br>

<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/IMGP2431crop8x10.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[heather_blanks]

<p>For my macro/closeup work, I have a couple of lenses in my bag that do the job nicely:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. I don't know what kind of lens you already have that covers this range, but if you've got a kit lens, this one is definitely worth the upgrade. Not only does it have a good closeup (1:2.3) feature at 70mm, it's an all-around great walk-around lens.</li>

<li>DFA100/2.8 macro. Don't let it's light, plasticky feel turn you off; this is a great lens--overall nice IQ and great color rendition.</li>

</ul>

<p>HTH,<br>

Heather :)</p>

 

[orly_andico]

<p>I'll second the Phoenix / Cosina / Vivitar / Pentax 100mm f3.5 Macro.</p>

<p>It only goes to 1:2 without the dedicated closeup adapter (and mine doesn't have the adapter). Got mine for $70 from B&H used. Noisy and built like a Fiat (as opposed to a tank).</p>

<p>The diaphragm is also on the inaccurate side, so f3.5 - f5 all look the same (they actually are all f3.5 on my sample!) so you get progressive overexposure. So I either use it at f3.5, f5.6, f8, or f11 and dispense with the intermediate stops.</p>

<p>That said it's a fine lens. Photozone has a review, it's not the sharpest macro on the block by a mile (the 16-45 is sharper and it's a short zoom!) but you can't complain for $70!</p>

[thermionicist]

<p>I have to do a lot of critical macro photography in the course of my everyday work (to document work-in-progress). I've always used the same rig, and have yet to find anything to rival it: Pentax 50mm f4 SMC-M Macro and 100mm f4 SMC-M macro, sometimes with Extension Tube Set K or Auto Extension Tube Set M, using either a Pentax LX with different viewfinders, or my older Pentax K2. A mirror lock-up is vital for critical macro photography. Of my cameras, only my LX, KX and K2 have mirror lockup. I know these two lenses are older types, but the image quality and flatness-of-field is superb. with the extension tubes, the lenses are capable of 1:1 magnification. </p>

[chetan_dighe]

<p>I have used extension tubes, reversal rings and closeup filter attachments for macro work. I have also used a macro lens once (50/4), and the results were similar to reversal ring based experiments.<br>

All of them give good results, but closeup filter attachments allow autofocus. For manual focus, extension tubes reduce the light, so it works only with fast lenses (50/1.4, for instance). However, since these are basic (single element) convex lenses, they (may) create cromatic aberration. I have tried using an achromatic doublet attached to a UV filter, and mounted it on the lens, with a slightly better color control.<br>

Extension tubes also reduce the light, and I normally use them to reduce the closest focussing distance of my 300/4 (normal min focussing distance 18 feet).<br>

Lenses mounted on Reversal Rings also work fine, but give vignetting at smaller apertures. Works ok if you are only interested in the central circle.<br>

More than just the lenses / attachments, I suppose we also need a very fine manual focusing mechanism, such as rails / bellows / etc. We also need a sturdy tripod, as handheld body movement can really kill an otherwise great shot. The DOF is really very shallow (a few milimeters) at real close distances (2 to 3 inches).</p>