Philip J Loc: Florida

Sir, please re-read my post.
I said a flower, not a plant.
Assuming that you know the difference and are able to read with comprehension the written word!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

MFT, Greg? ... I think you just invented a new one ....

I shoot ONLY APS-C, Greg ....

Well, I've dabbled a little with bridges ... and in film - both MF and LF ... plus 35 FF, of course ...

But, since going digital - my dig cam SLRs are ALL crop-sensor ... seems to be the way to go, these days ... FFs are much too heavy, for me ...

The complete thread here should give you a slightly better "picture" - Greg ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Phil ... yes, I know you did ... and I took a little liberty with the idea ...

But, regardless ... foreign matter can exist on flowers, as much as it can exist in the earth for a plant in a container ...

And no camera salespeople are likely to want EITHER - anywhere near expensive optical glass ...

FYI - out of consideration to others in the grocery store ... whenever I buy a plant there - it stays in the cart, until they scan it ...

Don't want to take the chance spilled earth will contaminate the conveyor belt, and thereby - someone else's food ....

But, Phil ... I do thank you for your suggestions ... perhaps I might take something when I go to check out my perfect macro ....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Well, I use a 30mm Panasonic on my GH4 (2X crop factor for stills). So that's a 60mm FF equivalent field of view, slightly longer than my classic Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 that I used on my F3. Since most of my macro work is copying slides, negatives, prints, and flat art, it suits me. It's also a decent full-body to half-body length portrait lens.

Now if I were photographing insects, arachnids, small animals, and their habitats, I'd get an Olympus 60mm f/2.8 (120mm FF equivalent field of view).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Micro Four-Thirds = Micro 4/3 = mu43 = m43 = M43 = M4/3 = MFT... Gaaaaa!!

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I guess I should have worded the question better. The original question is a bit vague. Different formats may have different focal lengths for their respective “perfect” all around macro lenses. The 105mm seems to be a favorite for NIkon’s FF cameras, but what is the best focal length for APS-C and micro 4/3 formats? The OP didn’t specify.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I always recommend a macro in the 90mm to 105mm range. Especially as one's first and/or only macro lens. A lens within this range is a good compromise both on full frame and on APS-C/crop cameras. (I'd consider it too long on a micro 4/3 sensor camera... maybe a 50 or 60mm in that case). This length lens is long enough to give you... 1. reasonable working distance at higher magnifications (typically about 12" min focus distance at full 1:1).... 2. yet not so long that it's difficult to get a steady shot the way 150mm and longer macro lenses are due to their longer focal length and further exacerbated by the fact that you usually need to stop them down more in search of adequate depth of field, since longer focal lengths render particularly shallow DoF at high magnifications.

Personally I have and use:

Tamron SP 60mm f/2.8 Macro/Portrait (crop only)
Canon MP-E 65mm Macro (ultra high magnification up to 5X life size, manual focus only)
Tamron SP 90mm Macro (vintage, manual focus only)
Canonm EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro

I also have a Canon TS-E 45mm Tilt-Shift lens that I use a lot for close-up work.

By far my most versatile and frequently used is the 100mm.

When I'm using crop sensor cameras and not sure I'll even need a macro, I may substitute the 60mm. It's smaller and lighter weight, plus it has an f/2 aperture which makes it better than most macro as a dual purpose/portrait lens (and thus, it takes the place of three lenses in my bag: 100mm macro, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8). The only drawback with it is that it puts me awfully close to subjects at it's highest magnification. It also isn't particularly fast focusing, but none of the macro lenses are. Even those with higher performance USM focus drive use "long throw" focus mechanisms that emphasis precision over speed. The focus speed of all of them is fine for their purposes, but not particularly usable for sports/action shooting, for example.

90mm on APS-C crop camera:


90mm on full frame (film) camera:


100mm on APS-C crop camera:


100mm on full frame camera:


180mm on full frame camera (note extremely shallow DoF):


45mm Tilt-Shift lens on APS-C crop camera:


For table-top studio/small product photography a shorter focal length with a short working distance can be ideal It allows the photographer to reach out an rearrange the subject while keeping one's eye to the viewfinder. Outdoors in the field, it might be the opposite... too close can scare away live subjects. Also, in-studio it's a controlled lighting situation, so there aren't the concerns about accidentally shading the subject the way there often can be working too close in the field.

I use a wide variety of other, non-macro lenses with macro extension tubes for a variety of close-up purposes, too.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I use a 60mm 2:1 macro and like it, although I do have to get very close to subject. I also use the 24-600mm zoom on my Sony RX10 III and like it for walk-around macro shooting.

bwa

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

For me it is 100mm. It goes to 1:1, small, not too long and relatively light. There are times that I carry it as my only lens on short walks. It is not my first choice for these walks but it is selected in the spring when there are small buds appearing all around.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I always thought my Tamron SP 60 f2 (in EOS mount) would work out for everything - whenever I needed a Macro, plus with the fast speed - a good choice when a low light capable piece of glass was required .... but, then - I decided I needed something a little wider than 90mm (in effect) - so I grabbed the Tokina 35 Pro DX - which pretty much covers "normal" in 35mm FF terms (52mm) ... but now I've discovered that was too short ... and the 60 Tamron was, too, for this purpose.

My Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro turned out to be ideal for many applications, in which I needed a Macro, but, in this instance - proved too long, Bill ....

So, now ... I'm wavering between an 85 Nikon f3.5 (really, too slow) and any of the Tamron 90s ... all of which are f2.8 ... fast enough, but, maybe - at 135 in reality ... just a little too long ... so, if I was to drop back from 85 and not revert to 60 ... it'd have to be within that 25mm scope, I guess - but, IS there one?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, right, Bill ... I always write that one as 4/3 ... forgot about that one ...

I thought Greg had tacked on a T to MF - for whatever reason ...

I see ... MFT - Micro 4/3rds ... as opposed to Micro (Bridge) 1/2.3" and 1" ...

Gotta get these things down, haven't I?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Greg ... my apologies ... wasn't thinking about MFT (4/3rds) format ...

Yes, I know I didn't specify Format ... but I didn't think I needed to ... all my dig cams are listed in my Signature ... clearly, they're ALL APS-C ...

In spite of the rather large FF following on here ... I think, when it comes down to brass tacks ... the most used DSLR - is APS-C format ....

So, as can be seen by the many comments here, already, on this thread - this is about Macro Lenses - for the APS-C format DSLRs ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Greg ... one more thought on this, before I go on ... even though it wasn't in the Topic Post question ... the lead post asked - what's your favorite choice?

So, even though the format wasn't specified ... following commentary - addressed the lead post (whether they realized it, or not) so - it enabled you (the reader) to open it up (intentional) and go in any direction - regardless of format ....

harly82fxr

Why no 50 mm I think that's a great lens for the money or if you want one that may not be many here like but if i take kids say Disney Land I use my Canon 18 to 200 its good for those outings i like the canon 85 1.8 that's very sharp lens good portrait lens. those are my 3 i use the most I have canon 200 to 400 but so darn heavy great if you have room for tripod .. I used my friends Sigma i think was 17 to 70 very compact and nice sharp lens. But i am using old bodies like Canon 50D and a canon 7D fiilm Eos 1n and A5 I really like the old Konica FT1 and there lenses are nice .my old 7D just keep on going lol looks like new though all mine are clean .

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Well, my bad, and my turn to apologize. I never paid attention to who the OP was!! Either not enough or too much coffee this morning.

My thinking was, the different formats will provide for a different perspective with any given lens. So while the 105 may be a great macro lens for a full frame camera, perhaps a different focal length would provide the same perspective with an APS-C or an MFT (T for “thirds—LOL) formatl, considering the various crop factors of 1.5 for the APS-C and 2 for the MFT. I have a D7200, which is APS-C, so perhaps the 60mm macro would give approximately the same results, or close to it, as the 105 on a FF sensor camera. The problem is, the shorter the focal length, the closer you have to get to your subject, and in the case of some bugs, that may not be a good thing. I hate spiders.