I'm not sure what "better" would mean in this context.
The lens I think could expand your possibilities reasonably with good working distance to the subject and nice perspective as well as good bokeh and DOF, would probably be a macro lens in the region of 90 to 105 mm. I think Tamron has one with a good price tag, and there might also be one or another that can be found second hand.
Nice one, some abstract quality too....
For that sort of scene, Brian, I normally start by trying my Tamron 24-70 but there are several similar options within that rather pricey range.
Sometimes I use a macro lens but that usually means a merge of focus points to give sufficient focus depth.
I too would like to know how you define better?
What were you trying to achieve. Did you have a vision in your minds eye and this is not living up to that vision? Could you perhaps post some examples of what you are trying for, or explain what you vision is?
It looks like a good shot to me, but maybe not what you were aiming for.
Did you want sharper, softer, brighter, darker... there are so many ways to interpret flowers. What is it you are trying for?
I can't help you with lens choices, but I think knowing these things will help others to guide you.
How do I define better? When I upgraded from the Fujifilm S4200 I did so because I had about pushed the camera to it's limits. It took and takes fine shots but I needed more potential. The Sony Alpha a58 with the kit lens fit the bill. Bigger sensor, better glass, more options an all around better piece of equipment that allowed me to develop better skills.
The lens I will end up buying will have the same potential.
It will allow me to move in a little closer, to capture more of the subtle colours, to have finer control of the background, to go a little deeper into the shadows and to end up with a 'better' shot. It will allow me a greater artistic reach.
I am thinking that it will not be a dedicated macro lens which requires much subtle movement of camera and tripod. But as Geoff and others have suggested something of a zoom with good close-up potential or even 1 to 1 macro.
Hope that helps.
Brian, when we first got DSLR's we bought the Nikon D70s. Along with that
the Nikon 70-300 D lens. I coupled this lens with closeup lenses, the 5T & or the 6T...
and I spent HOURS photographing macro shots, of everything.
Fantastic little lens capable of producing good crisp, if wanted, clear, bright shots
(which is what I was after at that time).
This is a rather small lens which I still have. Don't use it much because it is hard
for me to do closeup macro (I seem to get my neck in weird positions
which causes great pain).
But, this could be a rather inexpensive way to get closer up.....
Just another thought...
BTW... like your flower!
cheryle
Beautiful colors Brian, I like the image
You might want to consider a good quality 2 or 3 element achromat (close up lens) to put on your camera. With my big SLRs I use a proper macro but can also produce pretty fair results with a Raynox 150 or 250 or my old Leitz Elpro achromats.
Here is a shot from https://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/201...-back-to-bugs/ with a Nikon 1 30-110mm with the Raynox 150
And here is one using the ELPROs on the same lens.
and here is one with
IMHO...there is nothing better than a quality macro lens for floral photography...
especially if the images are incorporated with some of Photoshop's distort tools.
it took some exploring and a fair bit of help from CiC but I may have solved the problem. we have ordered a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Maxxum SLR and the tamron mid range 70-300 telephoto with out macro.