Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Macro Lens (Fast vs Slow)
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Feb 9, 2019 10:48:19   #
saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee
 
As others have said, be advised that the longer the focal length of a 2.8 prime lens the heavier the lens is likely to be. If you have the ability to visit a brick and mortar camera store, go and touch some macro lenses to get a feel for their weight. I purchased a Sigma 180mm, f/2.8 lens over a year ago and it is a heavy beast that delivers fantastic detail. I'm still young enough and able enough to hold it steady but I can see where others would need a good tripod to use this lens. Should you be interested, I have fairly recently posted some butterfly shots taken with a Nikon D810 and the Sigma 180. You will find them in the photo gallery section under my screen name.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 11:07:25   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
MechEng wrote:
Hi all. My first topic post so be gentle. I did do a search and saw quit a few macro lens questions but nothing that I recognized as what I am asking here. If I missed it, I apologize.

Anyway, I have become intrigued with macro photography so I have been doing some research and reviewing examples considered by peers as excellent to see what/how the final product was produced but no definitive pattern has emerged that I can see.

I don't have a macro lens....never have. One thing I have noticed is that macro lenses seem to be bunched into two categories as it pertains to speed.......f2.8 and f5-f6.3. I understand that f2.8 has shallow dof and would generally require a lot of pics (at various points of focus) stacked up to achieve the dof I see in the excellent examples. The slower lenses tend to be zoom lenses (but some fast macro lenses are zooms as well) and they give greater dof so you might not need to stack any pics or only a few.

But then I read that some lenses portrayed as macro lenses are really not and I get confused. The primary benefit of macro lenses as I understand it is their superior clarity so it seems like any lens labelled as macro would have some minimum clarity to be qualified as such.

My questions are for anyone that actually does macro photography and are:
1. Other than dof, does either the fast or slow macro lenses have other pros and/or cons I should be aware of?
2. Are there any lenses labelled as macro I should steer clear of? (I am not looking at bargain basement here.....let's assume I would spend $400 or more.)

Thank you for your time and I hope I didn't waste it.

Andy
Hi all. My first topic post so be gentle. I did ... (show quote)

Some lenses labled as macros, has nothing to do with their "clarity/sharpness", all those lenses are marked as macros, because they feature a "decent to very short minimum focus distance, but that does not make them macros, those are in general zoom lenses that will get you very close to your subject. A real macro is considered that, because it can record an image at a ratio of at least 1:1, that means it can record at lifesize. Most all zoom lenses are not capable of doing that, there are only very few around. So right away, if looking at a zoom lens, if it says it is macro, - it is not!

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 11:30:37   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
speters wrote:
Some lenses labled as macros, has nothing to do with their "clarity/sharpness", all those lenses are marked as macros, because they feature a "decent to very short minimum focus distance, but that does not make them macros, those are in general zoom lenses that will get you very close to your subject. A real macro is considered that, because it can record an image at a ratio of at least 1:1, that means it can record at lifesize. Most all zoom lenses are not capable of doing that, there are only very few around. So right away, if looking at a zoom lens, if it says it is macro, - it is not!
Some lenses labled as macros, has nothing to do wi... (show quote)


What is the Micro Nikkor 55mm considered? Using your definition.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2019 11:35:10   #
SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina
 
If I'm not mistaken that is a dedicated macro

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 11:47:21   #
spraguead Loc: Boston, MA
 
I've found the Tokina 100mm to be very nice on my Nikon bodies. And it's quite a good deal.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 11:54:54   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
MechEng wrote:
I shoot a T6i and have my eye on a Sigma 105 f2.8. just trying to make sure I understand my options and you're helping with that....thank you!

Consider the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L
Adorama has one used, rated E- for $599.00
It works well as both a getting started Macro and a really good 100mm Telephoto Prime.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 12:01:55   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
Gatorcoach wrote:
While you are looking check out the Tokina Macro 100mm F2.8 D. Very high ratings and lowest price of competitors.

BTW, I have it and love it!


Be careful if buying one used.
I had one where the AF/MF clutch would stick. I could not AF without first cycling the clutch.
It was inexpensive and very sharp, however the clutch AF/MF sticking made it a "NO DEAL" for me and I returned it.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2019 12:41:49   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
markwilliam1 wrote:
Only Nikon made a True Macro zoom in the past? Ever heard of the Minolta AF70-210mm f4 Macro lens introduced in 1985 I believe? Just one example?


I probably have but do not remember it ( old age creeping in) - It is the ONLY other zoom then ! Minolta also made a 3:1 macro similar to the Canon MP-65 and a 200mm macro.

..

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 12:50:16   #
SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina
 
The Tokina IS Highly rated! It's also a perfect focal length. One of those "you can't go wrong" lenses

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 12:53:48   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
SteveG wrote:
The Tokina IS Highly rated! It's also a perfect focal length. One of those "you can't go wrong" lenses


I don't think that Tokina makes a macro lens with IS, but maybe I am wrong however it is not on their website.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 12:55:20   #
SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina
 
My apologies. I meant that it "is" highly rated amongst those who have had one. Not that it was an "IS" image stabilized.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2019 12:56:35   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
ggab wrote:
Consider the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L
Adorama has one used, rated E- for $599.00
It works well as both a getting started Macro and a really good 100mm Telephoto Prime.


I just listed my Sigma 150mm OS in the Buy/Sell, it is a lot more lens than my Canon 100mm L IS.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-577793-1.html#9859611

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 12:58:19   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
SteveG wrote:
My apologies. I meant that it "is" highly rated amongst those who have had one. Not that it was an "IS" image stabilized.


Clearly my misunderstanding, yes it is a very good lens.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 14:38:48   #
piniongear
 
Buy a macro lens that is F2.8 and produces a 1:1 ratio.
I own Nikon Macro 60mm, a 105mm and a 200mm. All are fixed lens.
The 60 and 105 are F2.8 and the 200 is F4.0.
I use the 60 and 105 the most.
Using the 105 lets you back up twice the distance that you would be using a 60mm and still get the same magnification as using a 60mm close up.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 14:51:59   #
Gatorcoach Loc: New Jersey
 
boberic wrote:
The Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro is as good as it gets. About $800. (I am a Canon shooter) Any other 100mm fast macro will do as well


The Tokina AT X Pro D Macro 100mm f/2.8 is $349. If the quality is the same, better, or pretty close which all reviews are say it is then that is as good as it gets. IMO

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.