Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The brand of macro lens is of less consequence when shooting with a "true nacro" lens They all deliver, I own 9 different macro lenses plus other macro gear. Your technique is more important than brand. I use older manual focus lenses from the mid 1980's (even though I have newer auto focus models). More important is the focal length in relation to your subject matter. Shorter focal lengths mean that you are right on top of your subject. That makes it difficult to light our subject & if the subject is an insect or other small, mobile critter, then will get spooked since you will be too close for their comfort. Then it also depends on your subjects. Subject size will play a big part. Subjects like larger insects like big butterflies & Dragonflies will fill the frame without having to get so close & ,as per the manufacturers info, AF & stabilization become less effective once you get closer than half life size. My main subjects are small insects & small wildflowers (link to Flickr images below my signature line) & as well as using an older manual focus 105mm lens, I shoot entirely in manual modes , using a ring light for added illumination. The flash serves a few other purposes. It effectively stops all motion, be it yours or your subjects & it allows one to stop down the lens for added DOF (critically narrow as it is). Shooting outdoors , even with static subjects , is also difficult due to the fact that any wind, no matter how slight, has your subject going in & out of fous. Thus the more you shoot, the better your keeper rate as you will learn from your mistakes.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Forget about sending the pictures, please post them. I'm also shopping for a macro lens for an A6000 and was leaning toward the much more expensive Zeiss lens. The 30mm f/3.5 sounds like a good alternative. My wife just said, "I'm available to go to Allen's [Camera Store] on Thursday." I don't want to miss the opportunity.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Yes, you can see it in the download, it is the part below the Lock-Open ring.

kangurw Loc: Newark, NJ

Look at those pics with e 30mm f/3.5 https://flic.kr/p/KgYz6p

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Having shot macro over the years with 50mm, 90mm and now 180mm lenses, I can say that if you are at all serious about macro you will want a longer lens.
The working distance of 30mm and 50mm lenses is too short if you are photographing insects, etc. that have the ability to leave if you get too close.
You might want to go the the 'True Macro-Photography' section here at UHH and read some of the information posted there.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Here is an extreme crop of a Carpenter Bee taken with a 105mm MF lens from the mid 1980's. I'd like to see that 30mm lens take a shot that close on a much smaller subject like this & still capture the detail (eye facets are visible). Click on "download" & then on the image for maximum enlargement.

(Download)


(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For casual close ups I would use the Sigma 60m f2.8 and add extension tubes or just use the Sony clear image zoom to take you to 120mm effective. This Sigma of course can also be used for general photography without the tubes. It is a GREAT lens - check the reviews/data.

If you are indeed serious about getting near to 1:1, then 90-100mm manual macros are most cost effective with best IQ.

bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN

Nice photo actually.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Here is a shot taken with a Sony A57 using the Minolta 100mm f2.8 of some aphids on a rose. The A6300 with the LA-EA4 works just as well.

And the 2nd shot is a 30 sec shot at f2.8 with the 100mm macro lens. The bright star in the middle is Deneb. The picture has been processed in Lightroom to darken the sky a bit and was cropped a bit to remove some vignetting effect which is normal for star images and can be corrected with "flats". But the point is to see how clean the stars are without distortion.

(Download)


(Download)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

That Aphid shot isn't a macro, It's barely a close up. This shot would be considered a macro....
Pair of Aphids by Scott, on Flickr

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Yes, this is an outstanding image. I didn't have the extension tubes handy. Nor a flash ready.

I see you have the Olympus. Did you use focus stacking for depth of field?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Thanks ! No focus stacking & I used my Nikon D300 for this shot with the mid 1980's Lester Dine 105mm macro attached. No tubes either but I was using a ring light, again a Lester Dine branded unit from the mid 1980's as well. I did do a crop in post but this image shows the resolution capable with older gear... I use my OLY gear for when I want to travel light but don't use it for macro at all.

philklim Loc: Harrisonburg, Va.

Dear Screamin Scott,
Your Macro pictures are beautiful. I am a new photographer and am using a Sony A6000 camera. I have never done any Macro photography but would like to start. How good do you think the Minolta 100 mm f2.8 would be for macro photography as compared to the Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5. Please remember that I am just starting to shoot manually.
Thank you for any help you can give me.
Philip Klim

philklim Loc: Harrisonburg, Va.

Dear Jim,
Thank you for sending the photos.
Philip Klim

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Thanks !! As I said before, optically, any macro lens will deliver good results, you just have to develop a good technique. I would opt for the 100mm as it is slightly longer & would give you a slightly longer working distance. Either would work though. Best way to capture focus manually is to rock back & forth until the subject comes into focus & then trip the shutter. Takes a bit of practice to become proficient at it though so don't get discouraged. Subscribe to the "True Macro" forum here on UHH for lots of helpful info.