Macro lens - expensive is better?

[john_boyle3]

<p>I've used a Visoflex III with Bellows II and 65mm Elmar (Wetzlar version) on my M2 for years and found it to be an excellent outfit for flower photography. The bellows permits focussing from infinity to beyond 1:1 and it's easy to calculate the diaphragm correction (not exposure correction!) with the scale on the bellows. I later bought aLeicaflex SL and 60mm Elmarit with extension tube. That also worked well but I wound up using the bellows and 65 Elmar because of the focussing latitude that the bellows offered. In the end it comes down to personal preference. </p>

[tim gray]

<p>I can't really answer your question, but I can tell you what I've done. I started out with a Canon 100/2.8 macro and soon got the twin flash. I was into bug shots and other 1:1 stuff. If I was still into that, I'd have no problems getting a the newer Canon 100 macro and/or the MP-E 65mm.</p>

<p>At some point I realized I wasn't doing that type of photographer much any more and ended up selling the macro stuff. Somewhere right around then, I got in to Ms and film. Fast forward a couple years and I decided I 'needed' a 90 for my M. After investigating my options, I ended up with the 90 Macro Elmar-M, with macro adapter.</p>

<p>It's a fantastic lens. Perfect for travel. I used the macro adapter a couple times when I wanted to get down to 1:3, but most the time I used it without the adapter. Depending on the kind of photography you'll be using a macro for, it might be perfect. Small, easy to use, wonderful image quality. If you are just using it to get moderate close ups and you already shoot Ms, then it might be the way to go, particularly for travel. For example - close up of a flower or a trinket. On the other hand, if you macro is more spider eyes and flower stamen, then skip it and get a lens capable of 1:1 (or more) - the 90 Macro will be terribly frustrating. Think of it as a collapsible, portable 90 that can do some double duty with closeups.</p>

<p>FWIW, I decided that I'd rather have $3000 than a 90mm lens as I'm not really a 90 shooter, so I sold it :)</p>

[kchu]

Wow! I was only away 2 days and looked at the mess I have done to this forum. Indeed, thank you very much to the

great answers. I think I am going to buy some used gear, try out and see what end up sticking to my style. Personally, I

really like the M system, but understood the macro is probably its weakest department. It's time for me to get something,

and try out before I post anther thread here and try not to get people killed. Photography is supposed to get out there

and shoot (whether it's flower or bees or garbage can). I will do just that. Of course thank god that I can afford Leica and

canon and everything in between!!!

[joe_brachocki]

<p>Hi Kevin,<br>

I put together a guide that has all the information you need in one place to make an educated purchase of your first macro lens. I hope you check it out.<br>

You can access it by searching for "macro lenses for beginners with Joe Brachocki" on facebook.<br>

If you have any questions ever, feel free to ask on the wall or by message.<br>

Best Regards!<br>

Joe Brachocki</p>