What Macro lens to purchase for Sony

[KAT4DISNEY]

Wisbucky - is your goal to get more into your frame (wider angle), do true macro and to shoot the night parade with a single lens? Or do you definitely want a zoom?

The 100mm you have can achieve the same level of macro detail that havoc posted and will generally be better for insects since you will not need to get as close. If you want to do what I listed above then you will probably want wider than the 50mm. Perhaps the Sony 30mm f/2.8 DT Alpha A-Mount Macro Prime Lens would be a good lens to consider but of course that doesn't meet the zoom criteria that you mentioned in the first post.

And thanks for the additional detail about the lens you purchased. You should be able to post the link. If it's not allowed it will not come thru. And since you aren't looking to sell it yourself there aren't any restrictions otherwise that I know of.

 

[wisbucky]

Thanks Havoc for all your advice. I'll try the 100mm again on my upcoming trip this week. I am considering a monopod, but I may reconsider that. Which Sony dslr do you have?

 

[havoc315]

Thanks Havoc for all your advice. I'll try the 100mm again on my upcoming trip this week. I am considering a monopod, but I may reconsider that. Which Sony dslr do you have?

Currently shooting with the a55.

 

[hydman33]

Tamron 18-270 Macro is a great all-around lense. One lense, many types of shots.

 

[havoc315]

Tamron 18-270 Macro is a great all-around lense. One lense, many types of shots.

That's not a true macro lens. I believe it does 1:4 magnification, not 1:1. Also suffers from severe distortion but it is known to be a fairly good lens compared to other super zooms.

 

[wisbucky]

Back from my trip and I used the Sony 17-80 lens and loved it. I had to use the Sony 100mm for real macro shots but overall walking around and shooting here and there with this 17-80 I loved it. I was having serious second thoughts after buying it and the comments on here. But I have to say it is my 2nd favorite lens.

So while I was in Florida I head over to the Sonystyle store. They show me this 35mm macro lens for $1400. I have to say it focuses fast and I loved it but the price made me run. I was wondering if anyone else has this $1400 lens and what there thoughts are.

 

[havoc315]

april-140.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[wisbucky]

Havoc

Is the photo with the sony 35mm lens I was referring to?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc

Is the photo with the sony 35mm lens I was referring to?

Nope, the Minolta 50mm 2.8. $190 or so used.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Back from my trip and I used the Sony 17-80 lens and loved it. I had to use the Sony 100mm for real macro shots but overall walking around and shooting here and there with this 17-80 I loved it. I was having serious second thoughts after buying it and the comments on here. But I have to say it is my 2nd favorite lens.

So while I was in Florida I head over to the Sonystyle store. They show me this 35mm macro lens for $1400. I have to say it focuses fast and I loved it but the price made me run. I was wondering if anyone else has this $1400 lens and what there thoughts are.

They must have shown you the Sony 35mm 1.4 G lens - which is a fast prime lens and not a macro just to clarify. Specs state it has a 1:5 magnification.

It's not a prime I've used so I can't comment other than that it seems to be a highly rated lens. For the same focal length though, I have and would purchase again the Sony 35mm 1.8 SAM lens for $199. It's far less expensive, sharp and fast.

 

[havoc315]

They must have shown you the Sony 35mm 1.4 G lens - which is a fast prime lens and not a macro just to clarify. Specs state it has a 1:5 magnification.

It's not a prime I've used so I can't comment other than that it seems to be a highly rated lens. For the same focal length though, I have and would purchase again the Sony 35mm 1.8 SAM lens for $199. It's far less expensive, sharp and fast.

That makes sense, I never heard of a 35mm macro lens for the Sony.

The Sony 35mm 1.4G may be a fantastic lens, but for most photographers, it probably could not justify the cost over the 35mm 1.8, which is known to have pretty impressive optics for the price. It's a cheap plastic build, but gives excellent results. Not very useful for Macro, but great for low light, indoor photographs, and a good focal length as a walk-around lens if you don't need zoom.

Truthfully, I'm thinking of the using the Sony 35mm 1.8 as my "default" lens instead of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. A nice compact light lens, right in the middle of the Tamron's zoom range, but faster and sharper.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

That makes sense, I never heard of a 35mm macro lens for the Sony.

The Sony 35mm 1.4G may be a fantastic lens, but for most photographers, it probably could not justify the cost over the 35mm 1.8, which is known to have pretty impressive optics for the price. It's a cheap plastic build, but gives excellent results. Not very useful for Macro, but great for low light, indoor photographs, and a good focal length as a walk-around lens if you don't need zoom.

Truthfully, I'm thinking of the using the Sony 35mm 1.8 as my "default" lens instead of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. A nice compact light lens, right in the middle of the Tamron's zoom range, but faster and sharper.

Since getting the 35mm 1.8 I think I have defaulted (unknowingly!) to it being my most used walk around. I really like the lens. It may not give that tactile sense of quality because of the plastic build but the pictures are quality IMO.

 

[havoc315]

Since getting the 35mm 1.8 I think I have defaulted (unknowingly!) to it being my most used walk around. I really like the lens. It may not give that tactile sense of quality because of the plastic build but the pictures are quality IMO.

And knowing that you can always get by without a flash!