macro lens for a200

[harvinder_shah]

<p>Hi... I am new to SLR world - just a year old - basically amateur photography - still learning the ropes. I am interested in getting myself a macro lens for A200 that I have. My budget is rather limited - $300 to $400 range. Woudl really apprecicate if you can advice on the lens that I should go for. Thanks.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>What kinds of subjects do you plan to shoot? Shorter focal lengths (e.g. 50mm) work well if you want to do things like stamps and coins. Those don't work nearly as well for things like insects, however -- for them, you really need the longer working distance of a long focal length (e.g. 90-100mm).</p>

<p>With a little looking, you can probably find a used Minolta 50/2.8 for around the price range you've given. You <em>might </em> be able to find an older Minolta 100/2.8 macro for that, but it's probably going to be hard (they usually go for around $500 in decent condition). The Tamron 90mm macro is quite good though. There's also the Cosina "Plastic fantastic" 100/3.5. It's made by Cosina and sold under various names like Phoenix, Quantaray, Vivitar and (of course) Cosina. It feels cheap and cheesy, but takes really decent pictures for the price. At least for macro use, the fact that it's slower doesn't mean much -- DoF is minimal when you get close, so you're often shooting around f/11 or f/16 (or so) anyway.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>I have the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro lens - here's a shot I took with it on my old Sony A200<br>

<a href="../photodb/photo?photo_id=9420255&size=lg">http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9420255&size=lg</a></p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Very sharp dragonfly Dale! The Tamron 90mm is very well regarded as Jerry mentions. I have an old Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro that cost me about $150, the autofocus is a bit noisy but it's very sharp (example <a href="../no-words-forum/00UVrj">here</a> about 10 pics down in the thread).</p>

<p>Shorter focal length means having to get closer to your subject for macro so it's harder to approach dragonflies, lizards etc. But on the other hand a short macro lens can be used more easily as a substitute for a standard all-purpose prime like the 50 f1.7 or 28 f2.8 so you may actually get more use out of it overall.<br>

Depending on what else you like to shoot, you might even check out Sony's new 30mm f2.8 macro SAM lens which costs $200 and is getting its <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic52279&get=last.html#575097">first example pics and user comments</a> in dyxum.com. Image quality looks ok but I'm a bit wary about the on-lens MF switch for the SAM focus drive, for macro you need to use manual focus more often than AF and it seems the small print with this lens suggests the focus drive might get damaged if you forget to switch between AF/MF correctly.</p>

<p>Check out the alpha mount <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=2">macro lens reviews</a> and specs in dyxum.com also.</p>

<p> </p>

[alanbrowne]

<p>I'd look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. Very sharp and very nice as a portrait lens as well.<br>

Seriously consider the Sigma 180mm.<br>

IMO you should avoid shorter macros like the 50mm or so. Working distances for insects are too short (spook them or get stung/bitten) and blocks natural light and makes flash work a real pain w/o a ring light.<br>

I've been stung (wasps, hornets) and that's no big deal. I've been bitten by spiders resultin in necrotized flesh that took 2 months to heal - and itched like crazy. Go long if you photograph aggressive spiders.<br>

For static macro the benefits of a focusing rail can't be understated if you want true 1:1 shots.</p>

[parv]

Speaking of focusing rail, Manfrotto "454 Micrometric Positioning Sliding Plate" will drive you nuts after a while as it moves side to side when trying to move it away or near the subject. It surely does me; irritates more so when I try to shoot between lulls of gusts|breeze.