What Macro lens to purchase for Sony

[wisbucky]

I am trying to decide what macro lens to purchase for my Sony A550. I want to use it for taking photos of flower beds, insects on flowers, etc. I have a 100mm lens but I am looking for a lens that is not fixed and more like a 28-85 or so. Just wondering what others suggest. I like getting the details of the stems and pedals etc.

Thanks for any help you experts can provide.

 

[havoc315]

Zoom (variable focal length) lenses are not true macro lenses. Some can produce close-ups at 1:4 scale or so, but only true macros produce 1:1.

At least I don't know of zoom lenses that are true macro.

 

[ukstitch]

The tamron 70-300 lens (the cheaper version) offers a 1:2 macro ratio (true macro is 1:1). so that's pretty close to being a macro lens...

Some kind of tripod helps greatly when using a lens of that length for macro though - even if it's just a gorillapod to hold the camera still.

 

[havoc315]

The tamron 70-300 lens (the cheaper version) offers a 1:2 macro ratio (true macro is 1:1). so that's pretty close to being a macro lens...

Some kind of tripod helps greatly when using a lens of that length for macro though - even if it's just a gorillapod to hold the camera still.

Ahhh, In camera image stabilization. Really lessens the need for a tripod.

 

[ukstitch]

Ahhh, In camera image stabilization. Really lessens the need for a tripod.

Definitely agree there - but, having used the tamron 70-300 in full macro mode myself, I can certainly say that (in my own experience anyway) a tripod makes life a lot easier because it's surprising how little you have to move the camera to have an affect on the image quality

 

[wisbucky]

I just purchased the Sony 17-80 3.5 - 5.6 macro lens. If this lens does not do what I am hoping, what true macro would you all recommend.

 

[HPS3]

Definitely agree there - but, having used the tamron 70-300 in full macro mode myself, I can certainly say that (in my own experience anyway) a tripod makes life a lot easier because it's surprising how little you have to move the camera to have an affect on the image quality

Ukstitch is definitely correct. Whenever you shoot macro, a tripod is very helpful. When focusing that close, dust landing on the lens can shake it. You'll also probably be using a smaller aperture so your shutter speed will be slower or your ISO will be higher.

 

[ukstitch]

I just purchased the Sony 17-80 3.5 - 5.6 macro lens. If this lens does not do what I am hoping, what true macro would you all recommend.

Which 100mm lens do you have? If that's the sony 100mm f2.8 macro then that's a perfectly good macro lens. As has been mentioned before, I'm not aware of any true (1:1 magnification) macro lenses that aren't a fixed length.

Other options that I'm aware of would be something like the tamron 70-300 I previously mentioned (max magnification 1:2) or possibly the sigma 18-50 f2.8 (max magnification 1:3).

The advantage of the fixed length 100mm (or tamron 90mm, sigma 105mm etc) is that they tend to produce much sharper images than the zooms mentioned because they're specifically designed with macro in mind.

While it can sometimes be annoying not having a zoom lens for things, the distances involved when working with macro tend to mean that you only need to take a step or two back to achieve the same result as changing the focal length on the zoom lens - "zooming with your feet" doesn't get much easier than with a macro lens.

The only other option I could suggest would be to look into getting something like the sigma 18-50 and then getting a set of extension tubes, which could potentially turn it into a true macro. I don't believe extension tubes alter the image quality, but I'm not entirely knowledgable on how they work so I could be wrong.

 

[wisbucky]

I have the Sony 100mm. F2.8 as you mentioned. It works great for close ups but I do have problems when it comes to getting much more in the photo. Stepping back does not help. I enjoy taking photos of the flowers and such as Epcot. I wanted to try something different. I'll see how this Sony alleged macro I just purchased works.

I also have a 30mm but it does not state it is a macro.

I am also hoping the new Sony lens I just got will help with parades at night. I am having a constant problem with the camera not snapping the photo due to it not being in focus. I think the parade floats are too close for the lens I am using to focus. I'm using the 18-250mm Sony lens.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I have the Sony 100mm. F2.8 as you mentioned. It works great for close ups but I do have problems when it comes to getting much more in the photo. Stepping back does not help. I enjoy taking photos of the flowers and such as Epcot. I wanted to try something different. I'll see how this Sony alleged macro I just purchased works.

I also have a 30mm but it does not state it is a macro.

I am also hoping the new Sony lens I just got will help with parades at night. I am having a constant problem with the camera not snapping the photo due to it not being in focus. I think the parade floats are too close for the lens I am using to focus. I'm using the 18-250mm Sony lens.

The 18-250 has a minimum focus distance of a little less than 1 1/2 feet at it's widest so that shouldn't be the issue with taking photos of the parade. It wouldn't be my first choice of lenses but you should be able to get some pictures with it. What camera settings are you using? I'd recommend using center spot focus to get the fastest focus of what you want. It's not the fastest focusing though so it will be tricky to use for that situation.

I'm curious exactly what lens you have ordered? I haven't kept up on the very newest lenses and can't find anything about a Sony 17-80mm.

 

[havoc315]

The 18-250 has a minimum focus distance of a little less than 1 1/2 feet at it's widest so that shouldn't be the issue with taking photos of the parade. It wouldn't be my first choice of lenses but you should be able to get some pictures with it. What camera settings are you using? I'd recommend using center spot focus to get the fastest focus of what you want. It's not the fastest focusing though so it will be tricky to use for that situation.

I'm curious exactly what lens you have ordered? I haven't kept up on the very newest lenses and can't find anything about a Sony 17-80mm.

Possibly referring to the 18-70... The original Sony Alpha kit lens, with 1:4 magnification.
I always found it to be an acceptable general purpose kit lens, but nothing special. I no longer use mine at all, since I use the Tamron 17-50 and Minolta 35-105, and for macro, the Minolta 50mm/2.8.

 

[wisbucky]

The Sony 17-80 was used. It was noted as being a macro. Which is why I was drawn to it. I was looking at the Sigma 18-50 but then this lens came up. I guess I should of stuck with the Sigma from what I am gathering.

I leave for vacation April 11. I have been snapping some shots with the Sony 17-80. It takes very nice clear photos. But of course does not get a real close up shot like I was hoping. I could kick myself now!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The Sony 17-80 was used. It was noted as being a macro. Which is why I was drawn to it. I was looking at the Sigma 18-50 but then this lens came up. I guess I should of stuck with the Sigma from what I am gathering.

I leave for vacation April 11. I have been snapping some shots with the Sony 17-80. It takes very nice clear photos. But of course does not get a real close up shot like I was hoping. I could kick myself now!

I'm still confused - Dyxum doesn't list a Sony 17-80mm so now I'm super curious! Could I beg you to list all the info that is on the end of the lens or the barrel? It could help us see if we have any hints to achieve your goals. Also, some people will confuse zoom with macro so sadly the note about it was probably incorrect.

As was mentioned above any true macro is going to be a fixed lens with 1:1 ratio but it's possible to use other lenses to achieve what I'm thinking may be your goal. You can get sort of a macro type look by using zoom lens at it's longest focal length and widest aperture. For example the following was taken with my NEX but using the 18-55mm kit lens. I took it at the longest 55mm and slightly stopped down aperture -f/6.3. I then cropped the photo. It's not a macro shot but gave me what I wanted to achieve.

Some of the old Minolta AF lenses have a macro feature. It usually is only a 1:4 magnification so still not true macro but what it allows is the closer than normal focal distance. I have a 35-105mm with this and it can be fun to play around with and offers some versatility that you can't get with all lenses. I have some great pictures of ketchup cups from the electric umbrella! Can't find that I uploaded them though or I'd share. They become manual focus in the macro mode but are otherwise auto focus. It is not a fast focusing lens though and probably wouldn't be too great for a night time parade and it's not extremely wide either at 35mm. I might have to bring it along sometime though and try it for fun.

 

[wisbucky]

I am so sorry I have my numbers mixed up. It is an 18-70 Sony. Specifically the ProMaster MC 1A Spectrum 7 MINOLTA/SONY Macro 18-70mm Camera Lens DT F3.5-F5.6

Again I am so sorry for giving the wrong info and making you waste time looking for a lens that does not exist.

I will be happy to post the link to the lens I purchased if I am not violating any rules.

 

[havoc315]

Early spring and this thread inspired me to do some macro shooting of the early buds of spring:


springmacro-12.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


First signs of spring by Havoc315, on Flickr


Early Spring by Havoc315, on Flickr


springmacro-5.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[wisbucky]

Havoc, it appear you used a 50mm. Correct? I am impressed with the photos as it is pretty close to what I am trying to achieve. I would like to get just a tad more definition. What lens would you suggest would achieve my goal?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, it appear you used a 50mm. Correct? I am impressed with the photos as it is pretty close to what I am trying to achieve. I would like to get just a tad more definition. What lens would you suggest would achieve my goal?

I use the Minolta 50mm f2.8, the restyled version as it has a focus limiter switch.

One of the few good macro lenses I could find for under $200 (used of course).
I'd love to have the Sony 100mm macro, but it's more than I can justify spending, as I don't do a ton of macro work.

Very affordably .... If you want to buy new, the Sony 30mm 2.8 macro, is under $200, and it would give you a fairly "wide" macro. The problem with the lens, to get 1:1 you need to get toooooooo close, but this may serve your purpose of having the flexibility to "back up" a bit.

When comparing lenses for Sony, especially if you want to buy used, I suggest reading reviews on Dyxum.com

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, it appear you used a 50mm. Correct? I am impressed with the photos as it is pretty close to what I am trying to achieve. I would like to get just a tad more definition. What lens would you suggest would achieve my goal?

Oh... and in terms of getting definition -- It's a matter of just adjusting your depth of field with the aperture. (Assuming I understand what you mean by definition).

Take a look at these 2 shots:


First signs of spring by Havoc315, on Flickr


springmacro-10.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Changing the aperture affected the amount of the picture that had "definition"

 

[wisbucky]

Havoc. I understand what you mean changing the aperture. I just like to have more definition on the leaves and such. The 100mm works well for close ups but you need a tripod to get a steady shot. Hauling a tripod around at Disney is a pain. With everything else it gets overwhelming.

 

[havoc315]

No lens will get -more- detail than the Sony 100mm macro. It is a top top rated lens and considered to have near perfect sharpness. (It is an $800 lens)
The other lenses you are considering will all be less sharp.
It may be a matter of using a tripod, but my shots are handheld. Steady yourself, try to use faster shutter speeds in good light, and the Sony steady shot system is helpful. Ad stop down the aperture to get greater depth of field.
The issue with macro photography, if you use a large aperture, the depth of field is do narrow--- only a tiny pin point is actually in focus.