Starting to look for a macro and telephoto lens for my Sony Alpha a58

[JBW]

Hi one and all. I need some advice on a macro and a telephoto lens for my Sony Alpha a58. Total cost under US 1000. I would be using the telephoto to get a little closer to spiders in the trees and the occasional bird. The macro for my flowers and bugs. Bokuh counts. Macro takes precedence over telephoto.
Thanks, Brian

[Dave Humphries]

What is the longest focal length you have available now Brian?

[xpatUSA]

The macro for my flowers and bugs. Bokuh counts. Macro takes precedence over telephoto.
Thanks, Brian

Brian, I can thoroughly recommend the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG (discontinued though). It has 9 blades for your Bokeh. 'DG' means it's full-frame but it's not real big or heavy and shot just fine on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLRs.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...-macro/review/

Available in "Sony" mount, it says in the link, but what kind of Sony mount I don't know.

I've also got a Sigma 18-200mm (not the 'C' model) but I can't say I'm greatly impressed with it so far.

Here's Sigma's current range, including zooms:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/macro-lenses

That 105mm macro and the 70-300mm "macro" zoom would fit your budget. Beware their use of the word "macro" for their zooms. Unlike the primes, it does not mean true 1:1 close-up macro capability, by which I mean a subject 5mm tall will be less than that on your sensor at closest focus. More like 1 to 3mm - as in not 5mm or more.

Good luck!

[DanK]

Brian,

Here's the tradeoff: a longer macro lens will work better for your purposes in some ways, but longer lenses are harder to hand-hold steadily enough for macro work, which may be a problem for you.

Leaving aside the issue of hand holding, you might want to consider a macro somewhere in the range of 90 to 105mm. These will give you a more comfortable working distance than a shorter lens, and they will give you more background blur (not the same as less DOF), which might help with some of your shots of flowers. However, if you are willing to give up those advantages, shorter lenses work well for macro with an APS-C sensor like yours. For several years, I did flower macros with an APS-C camera and a 60mm macro lens.

However, I have no knowledge of which lenses will fit your camera, since I have used only Canon macro lenses.

[JBW]

What is the longest focal length you have available now Brian?

This is what came with the camera.

Sony DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 SAM II Lens

Sony Alpha Mount for APS-C Sensors
35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 27-82.5mm
Aperture Range: f/3.5-36

[JBW]

Brian,

Here's the tradeoff: a longer macro lens will work better for your purposes in some ways, but longer lenses are harder to hand-hold steadily enough for macro work, which may be a problem for you.

Leaving aside the issue of hand holding, you might want to consider a macro somewhere in the range of 90 to 105mm. These will give you a more comfortable working distance than a shorter lens, and they will give you more background blur (not the same as less DOF), which might help with some of your shots of flowers. However, if you are willing to give up those advantages, shorter lenses work well for macro with an APS-C sensor like yours. For several years, I did flower macros with an APS-C camera and a 60mm macro lens.

However, I have no knowledge of which lenses will fit your camera, since I have used only Canon macro lenses.

Hand holding is not a problem at all. I always shoot on a tripod. I am already using 27 to 82.5 mm would the 90 to 105 make that much of a difference?

[JBW]

Brian, I can thoroughly recommend the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG (discontinued though). It has 9 blades for your Bokeh. 'DG' means it's full-frame but it's not real big or heavy and shot just fine on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLRs.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...-macro/review/

Available in "Sony" mount, it says in the link, but what kind of Sony mount I don't know.

I've also got a Sigma 18-200mm (not the 'C' model) but I can't say I'm greatly impressed with it so far.

Here's Sigma's current range, including zooms:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/macro-lenses

That 105mm macro and the 70-300mm "macro" zoom would fit your budget. Beware their use of the word "macro" for their zooms. Unlike the primes, it does not mean true 1:1 close-up macro capability, by which I mean a subject 5mm tall will be less than that on your sensor at closest focus. More like 1 to 3mm - as in not 5mm or more.

Good luck!

I have never been all that prcise on the difference between close up and macro. the macro zooms are worth a look.

[DanK]

I am already using 27 to 82.5 mm would the 90 to 105 make that much of a difference?

No, you wrote that you are using an 18-55 mm. You can't compare the actual focal length to the 35mm ff equivalent. So you would be doubling focal length from what you are currently using. a 100mm lens would be a 160mm equivalent on your camera. Yes, that will make a considerable difference, but if handholding is not a problem, I wouldn't worry about this.

Re "macro zooms"--they aren't really macro lenses. Almost all true macro lenses reach 1:1 magnification, meaning that the image is life-sized on the sensor. So-called macro zooms don't do this. Most have much lower magnification.

[Manfred M]

Time for a bit of a reality check as to what a telephoto will do for you. I don't know the Sony lens line at all, so can't comment on any specific lenses.

All lenses have a minimum focus distance (macros just tend to go closer), so an all-purpose telephoto with a decent zoom range might be fine for the occasional bird shot, but might not be good enough to get you close enough for the "spider in the tree" shot. The birders I know (just like the serious sports photographers) have some of the most expensive lenses on the planet, as the lower end lenses tend to have too small maximum apertures for the type of shooting that they do.

A lot of macro lenses are fixed focal length (no zoom), so given your disability, might not be all that suitable for you. Third party lenses that claim to be macro zooms are often not macro at all (as Dan suggested, the 1:1 ratio is a true macro; 2:1 and even 3:1 lenses seem to make their way into their macro lens range).

All I am suggesting is do your research very carefully so that you don't spend your money on a lens / lenses that won't do what you want.

[tao2]

Hi Brian,

here's a wee pile of reading material for ye. Worth an in-depth study if ye intend tae stick with Sony/Minolta. Ye will find that some older generation Sony/Minolta lenses are often recommended over the modern counterparts.



http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...ny-lens-mounts

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

http://www.dynaxdigital.com/index.ph...5c7c769375087a

http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp

Sony Alpha / "A" mount / Minolta AF - all use the same mount ( as the one on your a58). Some Sony lenses have DT on the lens. That means they're APS-C specific.

[JBW]

Time for a bit of a reality check as to what a telephoto will do for you. I don't know the Sony lens line at all, so can't comment on any specific lenses.

All lenses have a minimum focus distance (macros just tend to go closer), so an all-purpose telephoto with a decent zoom range might be fine for the occasional bird shot, but might not be good enough to get you close enough for the "spider in the tree" shot. The birders I know (just like the serious sports photographers) have some of the most expensive lenses on the planet, as the lower end lenses tend to have too small maximum apertures for the type of shooting that they do.

A lot of macro lenses are fixed focal length (no zoom), so given your disability, might not be all that suitable for you. Third party lenses that claim to be macro zooms are often not macro at all (as Dan suggested, the 1:1 ratio is a true macro; 2:1 and even 3:1 lenses seem to make their way into their macro lens range).

All I am suggesting is do your research very carefully so that you don't spend your money on a lens / lenses that won't do what you want.

And that's why I am starting here.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

here's a wee pile of reading material for ye. Worth an in-depth study if ye intend tae stick with Sony/Minolta. Ye will find that some older generation Sony/Minolta lenses are often recommended over the modern counterparts.



http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...ny-lens-mounts

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

http://www.dynaxdigital.com/index.ph...5c7c769375087a

http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp

Sony Alpha / "A" mount / Minolta AF - all use the same mount ( as the one on your a58). Some Sony lenses have DT on the lens. That means they're APS-C specific.

I'll be sticking with my Sony. The real deciding factor is whether or not any particular lens is available in the Philippines. if not then B&H becomes the deciding factor.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Brian,

Manfred's point was that if you're used to an 18-55mm, on whatever sensor size the Sony A58 is (it seems to be "DX" in Nikon terminology), then a 105mm will get you twice as close on your camera as you're used to; '105' is about twice '55'. I fear it may confuse the discussion if we start considering the full frame equivalent focal lengths in this thread - you are used to what your lens, at 55mm, achieves and how close you can get to the subject and still be able to focus. Although; I guess it may help you compare to what the Fuji S4200 takes.

I have never been all that precise on the difference between close up and macro.

"Macro" (as a term) means 1:1 - e.g. a 24mm long subject is projected on to your sensor (which is 18 x 24mm) as frame filling (side-to-side).
"Close up" (as a term) usually means 'more magnification than what you're used to', but not as much as Macro. So; a 48mm subject might be full width at 1:2 (= 0.5x), or 72mm at 1:3 magnification (= 0.33x), which is about what you get with your current lens (0.34x) when used at closest focus distance and the zoom setting for largest magnification.

However, you may find "close up lenses" advertised which are actually just a filter-like thing that goes on to the front of a lens to allow closer focusing. These should not be confused with a Macro lens, which is a proper lens which fits on to the camera. 'Close up lenses' are liable to suffer image quality issues that increase towards the edge of frame, so possibly OK for some subjects, but will reveal their weaknesses on others. I've not used one, but when fitted, they'll probably prevent you grabbing a shot at infinity, since they'll stop the lens focusing at those distances.


The problems you face with lens choice (apart from suppliers who will ship to your shipping address), are:

a) If you buy a 'normal' zoom (i.e. not "macro" tagged) telephoto lens, you will not be able to focus close enough for some subjects you would wish to capture - at least, not unless also using extension tubes - more cost, darker images and potentially a tripod mounting problem.

b) If you buy a "macro" tagged zoom telephoto lens, you won't be able to magnify your bug shots as far as you might wish - in fact, it may find it to be little improvement on what you achieve with the 18-55mm, so the only advantage will be a greater working distance (more space between end of lens and subject). Although again, this will be improved if you use extension tubes, but with those same disadvantages - more cost, darker images and potentially a tripod mounting problem. You should be able to find out the (non-tube) magnification factors in advance (from the specs or reviews) to judge though.

c) If you buy a true (fixed focal length) macro lens, you'll have no problems with focusing close enough, nor with really light loss and likely less issues with mounting camera on tripod with lens on front (although they are heavy). However, since it is a fixed focal length, you have to control magnification and framing by physically moving the lens (+ camera + tripod) closer to, or further from, the subject. This might be a problem, only you can really know. If you cannot get close enough, cropping in PP is the obvious solution, but as you already know, there are limits before image quality suffers too much.

To expand upon the issue of tripod mounting - if (any) telephoto lens does not have a tripod collar and bush, you'll have to mount the camera on tripod and I fear the weight of the telephoto lens at the increased distance from body due to the extension tubes may be an issue, either for aiming or drooping if tilt lock doesn't tighten enough. Conceivably even the lens mount on the A58 body if a particularly heavy lens is used in combination with several tubes and if the A58 lens mount is not metal - but I have no experience of Sony cameras, so I could be scaremongering here - but better that than the alternative.


As I see it, the issues you face are:
For the birds, with the 18-55mm lens; these are probably just too far away, so a longer focal length is needed, any telephoto zoom will help, for garden use, up to 300mm may be sufficient, unless you get ambitious with small birds at the far end.

For the blooming flowers, with the 18-55mm lens; these are probably less of an issue, unless they're a bit too far away for 55mm, as close as you can get with your tripod, so anything that gives a longer focal length will help, either a macro lens of (say) 105mm, or a zoom telephoto of (say) 70/75-300mm.

For the smaller bugs (and tiny flowers, buds or detailed parts of larger blooms), with the 18-55mm lens; you have a limited range of shooting distances at which you can capture these sufficiently large enough in the frame. This limitation is based upon them either being too close for the focus distance of the 18-55mm or too far away and hence too small in the frame.

A Macro lens will help with getting closer to any subject and a longer focal length will help bring distant things closer than the 55mm does. Longer focal length macro lenses (IF available for Sony mount) allow the 1:1 capture of small things at a greater distance and obviously are more useful as a telephoto lens for other subjects.


If you are able to get close enough to a subject, a set of extension tubes to use with the 18-55mm will help expand your options, but a macro lens will be easier to use, those of 90 or 105mm are a good compromise.

Cheers, Dave

[RobFellows]

Hi Brian,

I can definitely recomend the Tamron 90mm f2.8 vc usd. It is available in a Sony mount and if it's as good as the Nikon version your on a winner. The focal length and working distance are very usable and I think anything shorter will limit the usefulness for insects and hotshoe flash use.

Not too sure about Tele lenses for the Sony's.

I would reckon on your budget, pick one or the other (unless you can get used ones) as these are expensive lenses.
Also, ask yourself do you really need /want a macro lens?

One final thought for you, leave the trippd in the house for insect photos. You can't work quick enough and will really struggle to compose properly.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

Manfred's point was that if you're used to an 18-55mm, on whatever sensor size the Sony A58 is (it seems to be "DX" in Nikon terminology), then a 105mm will get you twice as close on your camera as you're used to; '105' is about twice '55'. I fear it may confuse the discussion if we start considering the full frame equivalent focal lengths in this thread - you are used to what your lens, at 55mm, achieves and how close you can get to the subject and still be able to focus. Although; I guess it may help you compare to what the Fuji S4200 takes.



"Macro" (as a term) means 1:1 - e.g. a 24mm long subject is projected on to your sensor (which is 18 x 24mm) as frame filling (side-to-side).
"Close up" (as a term) usually means 'more magnification than what you're used to', but not as much as Macro. So; a 48mm subject might be full width at 1:2 (= 0.5x), or 72mm at 1:3 magnification (= 0.33x), which is about what you get with your current lens (0.34x) when used at closest focus distance and the zoom setting for largest magnification.

Cheers, Dave

Hi Dave, the scary thing is that I think I may have understood your letter. Here is a link to a Sony lens which I think fits your description?

Just for the record the Sony body does have a metal insert to attach the tripod.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I can definitely recomend the Tamron 90mm f2.8 vc usd. It is available in a Sony mount and if it's as good as the Nikon version your on a winner. The focal length and working distance are very usable and I think anything shorter will limit the usefulness for insects and hotshoe flash use.

Not too sure about Tele lenses for the Sony's.

I would reckon on your budget, pick one or the other (unless you can get used ones) as these are expensive lenses.
Also, ask yourself do you really need /want a macro lens?

One final thought for you, leave the trippd in the house for insect photos. You can't work quick enough and will really struggle to compose properly.

And I just found out there are Tamron dealers on the Island to the east of us.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave, the scary thing is that I think I may have understood your letter. Here is a link to a Sony lens which I think fits your description?

Yes, that is certainly one solution as your Sony A58 camera has an A mount, I also think it has the necessary internal focus motor in the body to focus this lens - the reviews say that AF is not as fast as some other lenses (e.g. Tamron ones with "USD" in their name).

Just for the record the Sony body does have a metal insert to attach the tripod.

My comment on 'metal mount' related to the lens mount rather than the tripod insert.

If you did get that lens, I note it is only just over 500g, which from memory, is about the same weight as your camera body.

On B&H there seem to be several different versions of Tamron 90mm Macro lens, you need to be sure you are looking at/buying what you need, to avoid disappointment. e.g. if you want the faster focusing one, that's almost same price as the Sony, whereas the one more equivalent to the Sony you linked is considerably cheaper (and lighter still).


Hi Rob,

One final thought for you, leave the tripod in the house for insect photos.

I think Brian has to (always?) use a tripod to support the camera weight - please correct me if I'm wrong Brian.

Cheers, Dave

[JBW]

Yes, that is certainly one solution as your Sony A58 camera has an A mount, I also think it has the necessary internal focus motor in the body to focus this lens - the reviews say that AF is not as fast as some other lenses (e.g. Tamron ones with "USD" in their name).




My comment on 'metal mount' related to the lens mount rather than the tripod insert.

If you did get that lens, I note it is only just over 500g, which from memory, is about the same weight as your camera body.

On B&H there seem to be several different versions of Tamron 90mm Macro lens, you need to be sure you are looking at/buying what you need, to avoid disappointment. e.g. if you want the faster focusing one, that's almost same price as the Sony, whereas the one more equivalent to the Sony you linked is considerably cheaper (and lighter still).


Hi Rob,



I think Brian has to (always?) use a tripod to support the camera weight - please correct me if I'm wrong Brian.

Cheers, Dave

Yup I always use a tripod.

The Sony has a plastic rather than metal lens mount.

There are indeed multiple variations of the Tamron.

Don't know what i will get yet. But in this case the journey is definitely half the fun.

[Manfred M]

Brian - let me suggest a slightly different way for you to look at this. Given your health condition (MS) with what you have told me; you have fine motor control issues, to a lesser extent general motor control issues and you have visual issues (have trouble seeing the camera screen and focusing). You've told us the type of lens / photography you want to do. I think you should be brutally honest and ask yourself if you can even do it successfully?

Macro lenses are not fixed focal length, so composition means many fine adjustments / re-positioning of your camera on the tripod. We are looking at a few degrees of rotation and a few cm / fractions of a cm to compose. Macro shooters DO NOT autofocus, not that autofocus doesn't work, but rather that it is not good enough to focus on the subject. How good are your manual focus skills, given your vision issues?

Telephoto shots result in a higher level of magnification and his means much less margin of error for focusing your camera. Autofocus can (and does) get fooled by branches and leaves, especially at longer focal lengths; and these seem to be a in a lot of your images. There are work-arounds (single point focus / recompose), but again, this requires good vision and fine motor control. On the flip side, I believe your compositions would be stronger if you got closer to your subjects, so if you can work around some of the other issues, this would certainly help you.


Thoughts?

[JBW]

Brian - let me suggest a slightly different way for you to look at this. Given your health condition (MS) with what you have told me; you have fine motor control issues, to a lesser extent general motor control issues and you have visual issues (have trouble seeing the camera screen and focusing). You've told us the type of lens / photography you want to do. I think you should be brutally honest and ask yourself if you can even do it successfully?

Macro lenses are not fixed focal length, so composition means many fine adjustments / re-positioning of your camera on the tripod. We are looking at a few degrees of rotation and a few cm / fractions of a cm to compose. Macro shooters DO NOT autofocus, not that autofocus doesn't work, but rather that it is not good enough to focus on the subject. How good are your manual focus skills, given your vision issues?

Telephoto shots result in a higher level of magnification and his means much less margin of error for focusing your camera. Autofocus can (and does) get fooled by branches and leaves, especially at longer focal lengths; and these seem to be a in a lot of your images. There are work-arounds (single point focus / recompose), but again, this requires good vision and fine motor control. On the flip side, I believe your compositions would be stronger if you got closer to your subjects, so if you can work around some of the other issues, this would certainly help you.


Thoughts?

Grumpy, I think once again the value of being a part of this group has manifested itself.

You have raised valid issues. Auto focus is becoming more of a challenge. Micro adjustments of camera and tripod as well. It wouldn't hurt to throw in one other factor... wheelchair. I am not in one yet but I do shoot sitting on a stool while using a tripod.

Your slightly different way of looking requires that I change the question I asked.

We live on about 2000 sq. meters. We have more than a hundred varieties of Butterflies and perhaps 15 or 20 varieties of birds. We are currently putting in ponds (small waterfall?), pathways, vegetable beds, stonework and various flower beds. In time I may create a miniature village.

With my expanding list of limitations what gear would people suggest that will allow me the most pleasure from my Sony Alpha a58?

I should and do thank Grumpy for reminding me of my physical reality. It isn't that I am in denial. But after 30+ years it is such an old friend that I often don't think about it when I should.

Thanks Grumpy

PS it just took me four tries to type the 'Thanks' in the above line so Grumpy really does have a point.