Which of these two macro lenses would you recommend?

[thekillergazebo]

So I'm debating between these two macro lenses, the first is a Sony 30mm f3.5 to f22 I believe for a cost of $250. The 30mm is meant for a crop sensor camera. Option two is the full frame Sony 50mm f2.8 to f16 for a cost of $500. Both can do 1:1 reproduction. Which either lens I get would be used on an a6000 and a6300. Would love to hear everyone's input on these lenses since I've never really shot macro and would like to get into it for flowers, bugs, and shots of water droplets. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

44 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

So I'm debating between these two macro lenses, the first is a Sony 30mm f3.5 to f22 I believe for a cost of $250. The 30mm is meant for a crop sensor camera. Option two is the full frame Sony 50mm f2.8 to f16 for a cost of $500. Both can do 1:1 reproduction. Which either lens I get would be used on an a6000 and a6300. Would love to hear everyone's input on these lenses since I've never really shot macro and would like to get into it for flowers, bugs, and shots of water droplets. 

You are getting a macro lens to actually shoot 1:1 magnification?  In that case, think about the subject you are trying to shoot.  On macro lenses, the 1:1 magnification is only available at the closest focusing distance of the lens.  So on a shorter focal length macro lens, for the 1:1 magnification your subject will have to be mere centimeters (likely 2-3cm 9.5cm, checked the specs on B&H ) in front of the lens.  If you are trying to take macro photos of inanimate objects, fine.  But if you are trying to take photos of subjects that could easily move away if you try to get close, it's another story.

[thekillergazebo]

43 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

You are getting a macro lens to actually shoot 1:1 magnification?  In that case, think about the subject you are trying to shoot.  On macro lenses, the 1:1 magnification is only available at the closest focusing distance of the lens.  So on a shorter focal length macro lens, for the 1:1 magnification your subject will have to be mere centimeters (likely 2-3cm 9.5cm, checked the specs on B&H ) in front of the lens.  If you are trying to take macro photos of inanimate objects, fine.  But if you are trying to take photos of subjects that could easily move away if you try to get close, it's another story.

Mhmm that's a good point. Mostly I want to shoot some leaves and sea shells. But what worries me is that the full frame one only goes to f16 which I've seen on YouTube videos isn't much of a depth of field. Seems like those guys are all shooting at f20 and above. Although idk if since it's a crop camera if the f16 is now an f22 with the 1.4x of the sensor and 1.5x for the focal to make it a 75mm

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

Mhmm that's a good point. Mostly I want to shoot some leaves and sea shells. But what worries me is that the full frame one only goes to f16 which I've seen on YouTube videos isn't much of a depth of field. Seems like those guys are all shooting at f20 and above. Although idk if since it's a crop camera if the f16 is now an f22 with the 1.4x of the sensor and 1.5x for the focal to make it a 75mm

Aside from the close focusing distance needed to get the 1:1 magnification, there is another thing you need to consider about macro lenses.  The Nikon macro lenses I own are not true constant aperture lenses.  Yes they are prime lenses, yes they can be as wide as f/2.8, but only at infinity focusing distance.  Unlike other prime lenses, such as a 50mm f/1.4 that can stay f/1.4 at any focusing distance, macro lenses change their available aperture with change in focusing distance.  The widest available will be at infinity and at the closest focusing distance the widest aperture becomes something like f/5 or something.  This also means that the smallest aperture available changes with focusing distance.  At infinity focus, my 60mm macro lens' aperture ranges from f/2.8-f/32, at the closest focusing distance it goes from f/5-f/45.

 

I don't know how Sony has designed their macro lenses, but it may be similar to Nikon.

 

If you want to shoot video at a higher DOF, perhaps you should consider using a camera with a smaller sensor.  With lenses, there is a sweet range of aperture where the lens performs its best.  Above or below certain aperture openings, the image quality can be affected.

[thekillergazebo]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Aside from the close focusing distance needed to get the 1:1 magnification, there is another thing you need to consider about macro lenses.  The Nikon macro lenses I own are not true constant aperture lenses.  Yes they are prime lenses, yes they can be as wide as f/2.8, but only at infinity focusing distance.  Unlike other prime lenses, such as a 50mm f/1.4 that can stay f/1.4 at any focusing distance, macro lenses change their available aperture with change in focusing distance.  The widest available will be at infinity and at the closest focusing distance the widest aperture becomes something like f/5 or something.  This also means that the smallest aperture available changes with focusing distance.  At infinity focus, my 60mm macro lens' aperture ranges from f/2.8-f/32, at the closest focusing distance it goes from f/5-f/45.

 

I don't know how Sony has designed their macro lenses, but it may be similar to Nikon.

 

If you want to shoot video at a higher DOF, perhaps you should consider using a camera with a smaller sensor.  With lenses, there is a sweet range of aperture where the lens performs its best.  Above or below certain aperture openings, the image quality can be affected.

Well I only plan to use this lens for stills, no video. But of the two, which do you think is the better buy an better lens?

[AkiraDaarkst]

6 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

Well I only plan to use this lens for stills, no video. But of the two, which do you think is the better buy an better lens?

It depends on what you want to do, but generally the longer macro is a better option.  Longer closest focusing distance that gives you more room.  16cm vs 9.5cm.

 

EDIT:

I may have misunderstood your comment about shooting at f/20 or above and assumed you were talking about using the lens for video.  It just occurred to me you maybe talking about trying to get deeper DOF macro photos.  For this, you don't necessarily need to use smaller apertures.  Macro photographers use a technique called Focus Stacking and they use a micro adjustment rail to help them.

 

They use something like this where the camera's position is shifted forward or backwards slightly for each frame, and then in post (e.g. Photoshop) they stack all the photos together to achieve the deeper DOF look.  Some use two of these rails, so that they can make macro adjustments forward and backwards and also left to right.  They use wider apertures, but even at wide apertures the DOF is still a few millimeters thick enough.

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

You can also turn almost any other lens into a macro'ish lens using extension tubes or even by reverse mounting a shorter lens in front of a longer one.  Others use a bellows system. Most macro lenses are 1:1 max, but with these techniques you can achieve higher magnification ratios.

 

 

[porina]

A comment on the reported f numbers at close up work... Nikon does it differently than others - at least in my old Sony alpha DSLR days they behave the same as with my current Canon, which display the nominal f value regardless of focus distance (infinity equivalent). Nikon are a bit smarter in that they show the effective f number taking into consideration magnification. At close focus, the effective f number increases by a factor of 1+magnification e.g. for a 1:1 macro lens with maximum aperture of f/2.8, used at minimum focus distance for a magnification of 1, the multiplier is 1+1 or 2x, so effectively f/5.6. You don't really need to worry about this difference in most cases as the camera will sort it out for you anyway.

 

There is also another consideration with using really high f values: diffraction softening kicks in and even if you get perfect focus, things start to look noticeably softer from about f/16 onwards. Using focus stacking is a way around that, by compositing multiple images taken at lower f numbers which aren't affected.

 

Back to the original question of which of those lenses, it depends a little on the working distance you can get away with (the distance from lens front to subject), not to be confused with the focus distance (measured from sensor to subject). Especially as you get closer you can shade the subject and lack of light can be a big problem unless you use long exposure on tripod, or have a suitable flash. Also the field of view affects how much of the background you see, so shorter focal length can give a bit more context for the shot if you choose to use it. For general macro use, I prefer longer focal lengths but it depends on what you want to do.

[thekillergazebo]

I guess the full frame 50mm is the better option then. It will at least allow me to be a little bit farther away from the subject. Plus from what I read it's way sharper then the 30mm

[frostburg]

On 28/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, thekillergazebo said:

I guess the full frame 50mm is the better option then. It will at least allow me to be a little bit farther away from the subject. Plus from what I read it's way sharper then the 30mm

Keep in mind that at f/11 all decent lenses will be about equally sharp.

[.spider.]

5 hours ago, frostburg said:

Keep in mind that at f/11 all decent lenses will be about equally sharp.

Also keep in mind that at f/11 diffraction will reduce the sharpness.

If you do focus stacking make sure that the lens is having its maximum sharpness at around f/5.6 or lower.

[thekillergazebo]

All this info is great, but for someone just getting into macro stuff really hard to nail down which lens to get lol

[AkiraDaarkst]

33 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

All this info is great, but for someone just getting into macro stuff really hard to nail down which lens to get lol

There's a few simple solutions to this predicament.

• Buy all of them, like I did.  I own the 60, 105 and 200mm macro lenses from Nikon.
• Of course that's going to be expensive so instead, use these rules of thumb:
  • Short focal length macro lenses are best used for taking macro photos of inanimate objects, or if you want to do something like insect macro photography, use dead insects.
  • Long macro lenses are better for taking macro photos of living subjects.  Macro photos of insects and birds are best done with longer lenses so that there is a lower chance they notice your presence and run away, since you can take photos from further away.

I see that Sony makes 3 macro lenses, 30mm, 50mm and 90mm.  They don't have any macro lens longer than 90mm.  On other systems like Canon or Nikon, the most popular macro lens is actually a 100mm'ish macro lens.

[thekillergazebo]

Yeah since km on a crop sensor I was thinking the 50mm might be the best seeing as it would be a 75mm which would give me some length to get some living and some still life

[thekillergazebo]

But the 50mm I'm not sure on the specs.  The 30 and 90mm have similar specs. So I'm not sure why the 50 is so different 

[AkiraDaarkst]

14 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

Yeah since km on a crop sensor I was thinking the 50mm might be the best seeing as it would be a 75mm which would give me some length to get some living and some still life

Crop factor doesn't change focusing distance.

14 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

But the 50mm I'm not sure on the specs.  The 30 and 90mm have similar specs. So I'm not sure why the 50 is so different 

What do you mean similar specs?  The 90mm one has a close focusing distance of 23cm, the 50mm has 16cm and 30mm has 9.5cm.  They also have different elements/groups of glass.  The 50 and 90 can be used on full frame while the 30 is designed for APS-C.

 

As I already recommend, get the 50 at least.  Avoid the 30, it's just too damn close and the only thing I would ever photograph with such a short macro lens would be coins and stamps.  On my Nikon system, I use the 60mm macro lens for that.  The only thing is if you want to use a short focal length macro lens for taking portraits of people that you can communicate with and tell them to stay still.  With wildlife, they won't listen to your commands and you can't make them stay still.

[.spider.]

7 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The only thing is if you want to use a short focal length macro lens for taking portraits of people that you can communicate with and tell them to stay still.  

Who uses short focal length for taking portraits ?

[.spider.]

FYI

The focussing distance is measured from the object to the camera's sensor.

 

Example 

20cm focussing distance

10cm length of lens

4cm flange focal distance

 

20cm-10cm-4cm=6cm distance between the object and the lens.

[frostburg]

Just get the longest one you can afford, if you don't have some special reason otherwise. Even for coins or dead insects, a longer working distance help avoiding unwanted shadows.

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 hours ago, .spider. said:

Who uses short focal length for taking portraits ?

People who want to get creative.

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/15/why-you-shouldnt-count-out-wide-angle-lenses-for-portraits/

[.spider.]

16 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

People who want to get creative.

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/15/why-you-shouldnt-count-out-wide-angle-lenses-for-portraits/

Poor article

[xQubeZx]

6 hours ago, .spider. said:

Who uses short focal length for taking portraits ?

A 30mm on a crop body will be a 45mm which is very well suited for portraits. And tbh why do what everyone else does and shoot portraits with an 85 or similar all the time. I don't see any problems in using a 45mm for portraits

[thekillergazebo]

39 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

A 30mm on a crop body will be a 45mm which is very well suited for portraits. And tbh why do what everyone else does and shoot portraits with an 85 or similar all the time. I don't see any problems in using a 45mm for portraits

I'm not using it for portraits. My main focus is to use it for macro work

[.spider.]

2 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

I'm not using it for portraits. My main focus is to use it for macro work

Just get the longest focal length you can effort.

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

I'm not using it for portraits. My main focus is to use it for macro work

I wasn't intending to say you should use the lens for portraits, though macro lenses do make great portrait lenses.  I only mentioned portraits because in terms of living subjects, humans are the only creatures that you have the best chance of having them stay still and pose for you.  Insects, birds, wildlife will more likely run away the moment they notice you.