Buying a macro (WIP)

Really handy information. I'm still no closer to an answer on which lens to go with. So the hunt continues for the perfect lens to give as long a focal length as possible while still being able to be somewhat fast..

I suffer from chronic indecision when it comes to lenses. But, if I thought about it more, I'm sure I could make-up my mind; I bet. :)


Cheers!

ianywr wrote: what is the difference between the RS version of the minolta and the older version... it is stated in the guide that the circular blades are not incorporated... what effect does that have on the pictures??

Even the older version will produce wonderful bokeh. And the RS version with its rounded blades actually ceases to be circular pretty quickly as you close the aperture.

The obvious difference will be the shape of highlights in the background when shooting at large apertures, but that in itself is not really a measure of bokeh quality. In reality most macro work is don't at fairly small apertures, in which case almost every macro lens out there will cease to have circular aperture.

So I would say the difference is minimal. One other difference is that the focus ring on the original version is much smaller and thus harder to use. The RS version has a larger rubberized focus ring, so if you are into MF macro work that may be a significant difference. I have the RS and my daughter has the original. I've never been able to see a difference.

Have to say that I really like the bokeh of the Tamron 90 f2.8 macro. Its one of my favourite macro lenses. I also rate the Sigma 180 f3.5 highly (for sharpness) while the Minolta 3x-1x is in a world of its own in terms of magnification, build and DOF.

brettania wrote: Maybe the author had not encountered the Voigtländer AF Macro Dynar 100mm or the Tokina 100, but these are the only major exceptions to his rule that come to mind, going from their reviews.

What are the minus on the Tokina 100? I own an excellent copy of the 100/2.8 and yes, it's 1:2 and I did regret buying it initially as I had no knowledge of buying macros lens and presumed that they are all the same. On a FF, it's the equivalent of a 85mm... the ideal portraiture lens and on a APS-C, it's the equivalent of a 100mm.

I have no regrets after using it for more than three years for commercial work, and I will never part with it. It does have minor issues with CA if used incorrectly and it's slow but after all, macro work is about manual focus. Please tell me why it's on the less desirable macro lens list and don't worry... I will not bite, I'm just curious.

I had my concerns when you mentioned the Tokina 100 and I thought it could be something like the Sigma 400/5.6... the gears would get stripped easily on auto when mounted on dSLRs. I am pleased to inform that the Tokina 100/2.8 is very robust when it come to this issue. I the metal construction, the internal focusing and the weight is not an issue for me.

Will do the review when I have FF body...

Most macro lenses on the market today are very good lenses.

The main difference is in the focal length. Macro lenses range between 30mm and 200mm.

Around the 90-105mm mark is seen as a good compromise for a general use macro lens.

Shorter lengths are good for small objects, flowers etc and longer lengths are good for nervous bugs and small animals....it goes without saying that bigger lenses are more expensive and much heavier!

I have owned and used the following macro lenses:

Sony 30mm
Sigma 50mm
Tamron 90mm
Sony 100mm
Sigma 150mm
Tamron 180mm

The only one I have kept is the Tamron 90mm. A cracking lens , available at reasonable prices and not too heavy.

Macro lenses make fine portrait lenses too.