Can't decide which macro lens to get.

[scarlett_asbun]

<p>I'm getting frustrated. I really just got into photography and wanted to buy a macro to mess around with, but I can't decide on which one to get. I was going to get:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SAL30M28-Alpha-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002MPPRNQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1350582910&sr=1-1&keywords=sal30m28<br>

Mostly because it was cheap. Now I wonder if I'll regret buying something simply because it's less expensive. The photo quality might not be the best, and I rather spend $300 on something good than $200 on something I'll get rid of eventually because the results are lacking. </p>

 

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>It's a 30 mm lens, giving the same field of view as a 45 mm lens on full frame. That's perhaps a bit short for a first macro lens, you will have little distance between the subject and the lens. You don't mention the things you are going to photograph but in general a somewhat longer lens will be more practical. think about 60-100 mm lenses. In your case I'd study your needs first and then choose the lens.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>The 30 2.8 macro is actually one of my personal favorites of all time. Not easy to work with for insect macros, but very versatile as walkabout prime and tack sharp. Plus I love the more pronounced perspective than you'll get with other macros, see macro shots<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1038937"> in this folder </a>for some examples.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I'll agree with everything Paul wrote. I have the 30mm and have gotten some good macros with it. For example, <a href="../photodb/photo?photo_id=16422492&size=lg">this</a>, <a href="../photodb/photo?photo_id=16464552&size=lg">this</a> and <a href="../photodb/photo?photo_id=15872252&size=lg">this</a>. That being said, the focal length makes it more challenging to get full 1:1 magnification because you almost need to be touching your subject with the lens. That's why I'm going to get a longer macro when I get stateside again, probably the Tamron 90mm. If it will work for you depends on what level of magnification you want to achieve and how close you think you can get to your subject.</p>

[scarlett_asbun]

<p>I was looking for a lens that I could be versatile with -- pictures of bugs, flowers, leaves. Mostly nature. My wedding is coming up, so I suppose I wouldn't mind taking photos of my jewelry. <br>

I understand that a prime lens can't zoom in or out. Perhaps that in itself limits versatility. I've never owned a macro, so I don't know what it'll be like working with it.<br>

I found some lens' on Ebay:<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919053968?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/350620675959?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649<br>

To me, the listing looks the same and I would've guessed from the title that it's the same lens, but in the photos they look different and I can't really tell them apart in terms of functionality.<br>

Are they good buys? Is one better than the other? What's the difference between the two?<br>

Thanks in advance for any advice. </p>

 

[nodpete]

<p>I have a couple of friends that are into macro and both use the Sigma 105 f2.8 EXDG Macro. They swear by it and it does produce great shots. With the 105 you don't have to be right on top of the subject.</p>

[scarlett_asbun]

<p>Oh, and Siegfried/Paul, I didn't know you could get so close with a 30mm. I thought you would've needed a 100mm prime for those? Doesn't the numerical value have a relationship with the degree of magnification? </p>

[scarlett_asbun]

<p>Don, I have a Sony A-390 and I can only find the lens you suggested for Canon...</p>

[sgust]

<p>Scarlett,<br>

no a real macro will achieve 1:1 magnification no matter what the focal length. The difference lies in the distance between you and your subject at that magnification. When looking at lens specifications look at the minimum focus distance. That is generally the distance between the lens mount and the point of focus if I remember correctly. So if you subtract the length of the lens when fully extended (in case you didn't know, most macro lenses extend quite a bit when close focusing) from the close focus distance you will know how close the front of the lens is to the subject when you are at 1:1 magnification. With the 30mm, I'd estimate I'm only 10-15mm away from the subject when I focus as close as I can. the longer the focal length the more distance you gain, but hand holding becomes more difficult as well.<br>

You may want to look at used Minolta 50mm f/2.8 macros at KEH Camera. It would be a relatively cheap solution and I've read that they produce excellent results as well.</p>

[nodpete]

<p>Scarlett, both Adorama and B&H have it in Sony mount but it might be more than you're wanting to pay. I checked KEH and they only have used ones in Nikon and Canon.</p>

[parv]

Try these ...

 

- Greater than 1:1 Macros / Macro accessories / DIY macro by lens reversal, http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157612303706694/

 

- FAQ: 1:1 Macro Lenses - list, http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157603483223497/

[mostly sports]

<p>First, be aware of issues with the macro lenses you refer to on eBay.<br>

http://reviews.ebay.com/Buyer-Beware-Buying-a-Maxxum-50mm-f-2-8-Macro-on-Ebay?ugid=10000000000997146<br>

Second, macros are widely available from third party lens makers, and generally aren't that expensive (perhaps compared to fast zooms.) I think if you stick with Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma, you'll be happy. So the real choice is 50 or 100mm. I am very happy with my Minolta 100 2.8 macro, and it doubles as a nice portrait lens. I have the 30 2.8, too, but as mentioned, you have to get very close.</p>

[emaxxman]

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Minolta-Maxxum/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=MA&ccode=6&cc=81126&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Minolta-Maxxum/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=MA&ccode=6&cc=81126&r=WG&f</a></p>

<p>I have an older Minolta brand 100mm macro. I love it. Mine was the "D" version that was sold right before Konica Minolta was sold to Sony. You don't need the D version for macro. Optically, non-D and D are the same. Barrel is metal (from what I can tell.)<br>

Lens is tack sharp and doubles as a great portrait lens. In fact, I bought it for portraits but macro is great with 100mm. Personally, I think 30/50mm is just too short for true 1:1 macro. You're almost touching the subject.<br>

The used lenses at KEH (very reputuable) are just slightly over $300. I bought a 50mm f/1.7 from them that was old barrel lens style (close to 20 years old) and it works great! </p>

<p> </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>A somewhat inexpensive option for macro on your Sony would be to buy a cheap M42 adapter and then look on ebay or craigslist for a nice M42 Screwmount macro lens. There are tons available to choose from. The wonderful thing about Macro is that you dont really need auto focus since your Depth of Field is so narrow you focus by simply moving the camera back and forth ever so slightly.</p>

<p>Here is a photo I shot with an old Russian M42 mount Helios 44-2 with some cheap extension rings. You dont absolutely have to get a macro sepcific lens as any lens with do macro when mounted on tubes. But Macro specific lenses do perform better at these magnifications.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6827166688_5f7df38d5d_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p>The processing is rather heavy but you get the idea of what you can shoot with a relatively cheap setup. For instance, here is a realtively inexpensive combo that should give decent results as you learn how to shoot macro.<br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-61-L-Z-2-8-50-Russian-MACRO-Lens-M42-SLR-USSR-Pentax-SONY-CANON-EOS-BOX-/251170134940?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a7ae81b9c">http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-61-L-Z-2-8-50-Russian-MACRO-Lens-M42-SLR-USSR-Pentax-SONY-CANON-EOS-BOX-/251170134940?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a7ae81b9c</a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-61-L-Z-2-8-50-M42-Russian-Macro-Lens-Zenit-Pentax-Praktica-/330783778544?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4d043fe6f0"> </a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-Lens-to-Sony-Alpha-a77-a900-a950-a850-a550-a55-a65-Mount-Camera-Adapter-Ring-/170854973280?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item27c7bfff60">http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-Lens-to-Sony-Alpha-a77-a900-a950-a850-a550-a55-a65-Mount-Camera-Adapter-Ring-/170854973280?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item27c7bfff60</a></p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Just a clarification for Scarlett: while a typical point and shoot (if there still is such a thing in these days of mirrorless change) with a "macro" setting often has to be held really close to the subject for highest magnification, such a short distance is actually a disadvantage because its easy to cast shade over your subject, or to scare it off if its a bug.</p>

<p>With a DSLR like your a390, most people who take a lot of macro shots from insects and other tiny critters would much rather be as far away from that critter as possible, to avoid disturbing it or getting in the way with their own shadow. So they usually go for macro lenses in the 70-105mm focal length range (bigger still for dragonflies etc) which will give you multiple inches of distance at their highest magnification. Personally I enjoy the challenge of sneaking up as close as possible to a bug with my 30 macro and almost literally sticking the lens into its face at 1:1 magnification, but that is definitely harder to give successful results than with longer focal lengths. For the other subjects you mention, flowers and especially landscape, I'd say the 30 macro is one of the very best options available among macro lenses because of its wider angle - so there is a definite tradeoff to consider.</p>

<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that the best macro shot is often NOT taken at highest magnification the lens can get, because with over 10 mpx on current DSLRs theres plenty of room to crop the extra background, and if you pull back a little with slightly lower mag then you not only wont have to get quite as close (and thus be as likely to shade/scare the subject) but you'll also get more depth of focus. In regular photography minimal DOF is often considered a good thing for artistic purposes, but at or near 1:1 magnification theres so little DOF with all macro lenses on DSLRs that it becomes severely limiting rather than artistic (unless you also have macro flash and can close apertures way beyond f14). Point and shoots do not behave like that because of the significantly smaller optics and sensors inside them, which allow for a more generous DOF in the final image.</p>

<p>As you do mention bugs, I would definitely add my vote to the various recommendations above to check what is available used from KEH (and take note that their bargain grade or BGN condition is equal to almost everyone else's excellent condition). Their prices are often no higher than ebay and buying from them gives you better terms than most ebay sellers for a possible return if you dont like the lens.</p>

<p>And theres a really good writeup on macro options for alpha mount cameras at<a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic40674_post436129.html#436129"> this page on dyxum.com</a>, spend some time reading, exploring the links in it, and digesting all that info first before you make up your mind, because there are many ways to get high magnification with a DSLR!</p>

<p> </p>

[mr_spocko]

<p>Tamron 90mm f2.8 brilliant macro lens, superb candid/portrait lens. It's a very useful double use lens.</p>

[marc_ravignat]

<p>I have used many macro lenses (Minolta AF 50mm 3.5, Industar 61 LZ, Tamron SP 90, etc), but my favorite lens is the Russian Volna 9 which can be purchased on Ebay. I just love the bokeh from this lens.</p>