burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I have two of the 55mm "Micro" Nikkors. They get down to 1:2, but usually were sold with extension rings that got down to 1:1.

The early 55mm f/3.5 I have automatically compensates for reciprocity factor between 1:10 and 1:2. That can be an issue on some newer cameras. It was great when used with a meter-less Nikon F (prism finder).

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Macro lenses focus to infinity. True macros focus down to 1:1. Some close focusing lenses can get down to 4:1 but no closer without extension tubes or close focusing filters.

rbhallock Loc: Western Massachusetts

Ii use the Nikon 105 micro a lot. It will focus at any far distance. Great lens.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

I've used the Canon version and it is an excellent lens. it is very sharp.

Irwin

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Well, after reading all these replies, it would seem I need to purchase a Nikon DSLR. I say that in jest, but the truth is, I’m limited to Sony E-mount lenses, so my choices are few. But my initial question has been answered, for which I thank you all. But the more I read, the more things come to mind, so this conversation has been enlightening. And yes, I probably should have posted this in the Macro section. I didn’t think about that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An adapter will mount most any other brand's lens to your Sony ....

If you desire a macro lens, consider too if you need autofocus for an EVF-capable mirrorless camera. The 10x zoom in the viewfinder or LCD makes manual focus a very powerful tool where you might find older, cheaper and just as sharp / capable macro lenses an option via adapter. A tripod, for me, is the required tool for successful manual focus macro.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Try the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens for Sony E

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1393483-REG/sigma_70mm_f_2_8_dg_macro.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

It is a very nice lens!

Dan Ausec

I have both of those lenses for my D7100..my best used lens purchases !

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

That is one that I was looking at. Sigma makes some very good lenses.

PWA1994DV

I have a 55 mm Nikor macro I bought in 1976. Still the sharpest lens I have and yes it works at the full rang of focus. a few inches to infinity.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There is no set description of what magnification constitutes "macro".

Historically... and to some extent still today... "real" macro lenses have been capable of at least 1:2 magnification, or half life size.

But some people think it has to be full life size or 1:1, to be considered "macro".

In some circles "micro" means greater than 1:1. But Nikon and others have used that term for their macro lenses for ages.

Magnification has to do with how large the image is on the camera's sensor or on film. To be 1:1 a full frame camera with a 24x36mm sensor needs to be able to photograph a 24x36mm area. 1:2 would be a 48x72mm area.

Lens makers have never agreed to a standard definition... If anything, just the opposite. They've confused it... maybe deliberately. The term "Macro" is used on many lenses that don't come anywhere close to 1:2, let alone 1:1. It's common for zooms, some of which can do no better than 1:3, 1:2.5 or even 1:2 or less.

Yes, most "true" macro lenses can focus from infinity to full 1:1, or at least 1:2.

A previous post pointed out one exception... the Canon MP-E 65mm.... the least magnification it can do is 1:1 and it goes as high as 5:1. With that lens at it's highest magnification, you can fill the viewfinder of a full frame camera with a single grain of rice. For comparison, at 1:1 a US 25 cent coin will fill a full frame camera's image area. At 1:1 a US 1 cent coin will fill an APS-C camera's image area and viewfinder. There are some other lenses that are capable of ultra-high magnification, some of which can focus to infinity, while others can't.

Most macro lenses are optimized for close focus. This means their optics are "flat field" designs, which allows them to render an images sharp from edge to edge at very close focus distances. Non-macro lenses use a curved field design, where they are optimized for shooting at a greater distance. For example, a portrait lens might be optimized for 8 to 12 feet. Or a landscape lens might be optimized for 25 or more feet distance.

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

I have found that most all true macro lenses will yield great results. The differences lay in build quality, price and feature set. Technique trumps gear brand when shooting macro...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Sigma 70mm Macro is a nice lens.

Most macro lenses are capable of making very high quality images. That's the least of your worries.

If you feel you'll be using the lens near it's max magnification a lot, you should consider focal length vs working distance.

The Sigma 70mm has slightly over 10" minimum focus distance (MFD) at full 1:1 magnification. MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera... so a significant portion of that distance is occupied by the lens itself and part of the camera body.

That Sigma lens is not an "IF" or "internal focus" lens. This means it grows longer when focused closer. While it's about 4.5" long at infinity, at full 1:1 it's about 6.5" long. Add to that the approx. 3/4 inch the Sony e-mount sensor is recessed inside the camera body (measured from the lens flange)... then subtract the result from the MFD. This gives you a good estimate of "working distance"... how far the front of the lens will be from a subject at the highest magnification. In the case of the Sigma 70mm Macro, working distance will be about 2.75 inches (a lens hood or any other attachments to the front of the lens will further reduce working distance).

With some subjects, working distance doesn't matter very much. With others, it can be very important. Only you can say what you'll be photographing and whether or not working distance is a consideration. Some subjects don't require anywhere near full 1:1 and working distance will be much greater. In animate objects aren't usually a problem, so long as you don't cast a shadow. But live critters can be shy about you getting so close. Some beasties that bite or sting might even be dangerous to get so close.

Just for example...

Sony 90mm f/2.8 OSS Macro lens is IF, about 5.33 inches long at all focus distances and has 11" MFD... leaving just slightly less than 5" working distance at 1:1.

Tokina 100mm f/2.8 FIRIN Macro lens is not IF, is about 6.42 inches long at 1:1 and has an 11.8" MFD... leaving about 4.63" working distance at 1:1.

Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro is not IF, is 2.8" long at infinity, there are no specs listed anywhere giving its length at 1:1, but it appears to grow about an inch longer, so lets' say 3.8". MFD is 6.3". Subtract the length of the lens and the flange-to-sensor distance inside the camera and at highest magnification that leaves only about 1.75" of working distance between the front of the lens and your subject matter. Good news is that the front element is deeply recessed, so no lens hood is likely to be needed (a hood would further encroach upon working distance). Bad news is that working so close will be problematic with any living critters and even with inanimate objects you may have difficulty avoiding casting a shadow over your subject.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Thank you for that informative response. That is something I hadn’t thought of before. Fortunately, I don’t tend to get close ups of any small critters. Just not a bug shooter. My issue would be casting shadows on a subject by being so close. I guess a ring flash would of help there. I like to shoot small flowers on the tundra surface.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

Check the specks, Example:
Nikon 105mm macro is 1:1 where as Nikon 55mm macro is 1:2 and only 1:1 with extension tube. (PK13) But both are normal lenses.