Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro Lenses - 30mm, 60mm, 90mm, 180mm - which is best? what has been your experience?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
Apr 14, 2019 15:44:47   #
Chris T
 
bwana wrote:
I have a 60mm and 100mm. The 60mm is a 2:1 lens giving high magnification. The 100mm, 1:1, allows me to back off from the target a bit more.

bwa


WHICH 60mm Macro is only 1:2, Bwana?

My Tamron 60 f2 is 1:1 ....


| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 16:06:18   #
Chris T
 
DWU2 wrote:
I get good results with my 90mm f/2.8 Sigma. It gives me enough separation that I usually don't bother critters. If I want a little more separation, I occasionally use it with a 2X teleextender.


90 f2.8 SIGMA, Dan … or do you mean 90 f2.8 Tamron?

If you meant Sigma … that's gotta be a real old Macro Lens - huh?

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 16:12:11   #
DWU2
 
Chris T wrote:
90 f2.8 SIGMA, Dan … or do you mean 90 f2.8 Tamron?

If you meant Sigma … that's gotta be a real old Macro Lens - huh?


Indeed, you're correct - I have several Sigmas, but the 90mm is a Tamron.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:02:36   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
First time I've ever heard THAT, Arch … a 100-400 - used as a Macro!!!! … as close as THREE FEET, huh?

That's about what you'd be with a 180 or 200, I'll bet!!!! … 105 Macros are good to about 1.2 feet (14")


Look up a discussion here a few days ago about the 100-400mm L lens.
It is sharp and near macro, only lens in its class that can do it including all 70 200mm lenses can't do it.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:18:28   #
Chris T
 
lisasells55 wrote:
Yes, it is an expensive lens, although I've had it for many years. I am interested in checking out those Sigmas. I've heard their macro lenses are really good!


Yes, they are, Lisa … they used to have a bevy of Macros in the 20, 24, 28 range, but I don't see those anymore … the shortest, now, seems to be the 70 - which has been re-invented, and re-introduced. The old one suffered a bit from QC problems, I understand - but this one's gotten a good rep. And, of course - the 105 I have - is a beautiful piece of equipment. And, all four are at f2.8 (w/ 150, 180) so, they're fairly fast!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:21:37   #
Chris T
 
DWU2 wrote:
Indeed, you're correct - I have several Sigmas, but the 90mm is a Tamron.


Thought so, Dan … do you have the older version w/o VC, or do you have the newer version with it?

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:31:15   #
Chris T
 
Architect1776 wrote:
Look up a discussion here a few days ago about the 100-400mm L lens.
It is sharp and near macro, only lens in its class that can do it including all 70 200mm lenses can't do it.


That's okay, Arch … I'll take your word for it … there's so much posted here, everyday … it'd be like looking for a needle in a haystack!!!! …

My preference, when shooting Macros, though - is to do it with a REAL one ….

Only exception is my EOS EF-S 15-85 IS USM - which achieves Macro at around 15" {1.2'} (closest focus)

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:43:44   #
timm27
 
180 is great for not spooking what you are shooting, but the older you get the more tripod dependent I have become.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 17:59:22   #
Chris T
 
timm27 wrote:
180 is great for not spooking what you are shooting, but the older you get the more tripod dependent I have become.


Which 180 do you use, Tim - the Siggie or the Tammy, or is it one of the proprietary ones - Nikon or Canon?

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 18:10:12   #
DWU2
 
Chris T wrote:
Thought so, Dan … do you have the older version w/o VC, or do you have the newer version with it?


Without. But, that never seems to be a problem, even handheld.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 18:12:29   #
Bertk
 
Chris T wrote:
Thanks, Bert … this wasn't really posed as a Macro primer, for those uninitiated, but rather as a discussion on which of the Basic Four Macro Lens Groups (30-40, 50-70, 90-105, 180-200) - was better suited for ALL purposes - which implies you already have at least one or two of them, and have decided those TWO are working out for you - in contrast to those who have at least ONE in each of the FOUR groups, and thus - can take their pick, at their leisure - which, of course - is the ideal solution …. But, this post - was intended to recognize we aren't ALL - lucky enough to be in such a position, so - if only TWO were in the budget - which TWO would YOU (the reader, and Macro user) - be likely to choose. I hope that explains further, the intent.

As to the state of your confusion - perhaps, if you'd elaborate on that - someone here could help further.
Thanks, Bert … this wasn't really posed as a Macro... (show quote)


Hi Chris, Thank you for such an elaborate response. Yes at present i have NIKON 60mm 2.8 1:1 Macro older version. Its a terrific lens I love the portraits I take with Nikon D90. Excellent sharpness and also great macros. But I was looking forward to buy another prime and was wondering what to buy Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105mm. I am still not sure; might try them both and see. Tamron 90mm was able to quick focus in low light with D750, but will try with my D90 on tuesday at Tamron"s macro seminar in Commack NY. Not sure if I do have a budget yet... And also waiting on what Nikon does, when it comes out with new version of D750.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 18:13:47   #
burkphoto (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Is it really necessary for us to buy one in each range? Or, are just one or two suitable for most things? If you use them - please advise as to which length is better suited for YOUR purposes, and why you chose it.


When I used 35mm film, I used a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor for copy stand work and artwork reproduction. It was barely short enough to work on my copy stand.

When I used dSLRs, I used a 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron zoom with a "macro mode" that got down to 1/4 life size. It was okay for the work I did then, but I really wished I had a 30 or 40mm true macro for copy stand work on a Canon 50D.

Now I'm using Micro 4/3, and the 30mm f/2.8 Lumix macro lens is what I use to copy everything from portions of a 35mm frame of film up to the sort of art I used to copy with my Nikon F3. It's a wee tad long, but it'll do.

Longer lenses are great if you're photographing bugs, small animals, and other things that can be frightened or that frighten you. I don't do enough of that to justify owning another macro lens, but I know folks who love long macro lenses for photographing snakes, wasps, spiders, etc.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 18:32:22   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
That's okay, Arch … I'll take your word for it … there's so much posted here, everyday … it'd be like looking for a needle in a haystack!!!! …

My preference, when shooting Macros, though - is to do it with a REAL one ….

Only exception is my EOS EF-S 15-85 IS USM - which achieves Macro at around 15" {1.2'} (closest focus)


This discusses the close focus among other features.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm

This discusses the quality.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever/

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 18:52:26   #
Ratskinner
 
I use a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro. I love it and once tried a 60mm macro and did't like it.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 19:28:29   #
Chris T
 
lisasells55 wrote:
Yes, it is an expensive lens, although I've had it for many years. I am interested in checking out those Sigmas. I've heard their macro lenses are really good!


Lisa - here's a pic I just took of my Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro on my Sony alpha a77 II …

I shot it with my Canon EOS Rebel T4i with EF-S 15-85 IS USM … (which has a macro mode)
Sigma EX 105 f2.8 OS HSM Macro
Sigma EX 105 f2.8 OS HSM Macro...

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.