Sony E-Mount Macro Glass

[Tri Danimal]

I'm looking for Macro Glass for my kit, if you look at my signature you will notice I have the Sony G 90mm f2.8 Macro glass. This is correct however it is with my partner for 85-90% of the time and its on our A7III; I have the A6500 with me 100% of the time. I am trying to decide if I should get the Sony FE 50mm f2.8 @ 236grams or the Sony E 30m f3.5 @ 138grams. This glass will be mounted on my A6500 most of the time. The price point is about $200 differance and I think I can make it work in my budget.

Also, this is a hobby for me, but my partner is a full-time videographer so I'm kind of torn between getting the FE glass in case we need it for a gig vs the E glass just for my fun stuff. The weight differance will not be that big of a deal for me either its only 100grams.

Important note we are going to start getting into adventure photo/videography. So I think having the macro to show off the cool bugs and plants we encounter would be neat.

Is there a better option for the glass; I would really like to keep the budget at around the $5-600 mark.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Have you thought about getting a good old Nikkor Micro lens and adapting it?
You could do that for about half your budgeted price if you shopped around.
My Micro Nikkor 55 2.8 is probably my best lens overall, but the Sony FE 28/2 is finding time on my A7ii too.

[DanK]

Is this for real macro work? If so, will all of these lenses go to 1:1? (I don't shoot Sony.)

At 1:1, the size of the subject image cast on the sensor is identical regardless of sensor size or the focal length of the lens. (Sensor size matters only in that the image will obviously fill more of the frame with your smaller-sensor camera, but that really only matters if the pixel density is higher.) The main differences for macro work are two: a shorter focal length means less working distance and less background blur (which is distinct from depth of field.) For that reason, I rarely take my 60mm macro out of the cupboard; I always use my 100mm. For bugs in particular, anything less than 90mm can be a problem.

[billtils]

This thread has stirred my interest in what defines "macro". The purist definition is as described by Dan but does that (the definition, not Dan's statement of it!) matter?

I have a Tamron 90mm 1:1 macro lens but in recent weeks have discovered that I can get better "close up" images of small creatures using my 300mm + 1.4x TC (the DoF is better). Does this mean I am not shooting macro any more, or should we stop using "macro" and talk about "close up" instead?

[Stagecoach]

Dan has already raised the important subject of macro working distance for the shorter focal lengths so I will not expand on it.

I would ask you Daniel if your partner has the 90mm 85/90% of the time because of its 90mm focal length OR because she needs the 'Macro' capability?

So could an option be, for your partner to have another lens around that FL without the macro/closeup facility and you have the 90mm Macro?

[DanK]

This thread has stirred my interest in what defines "macro". The purist definition is as described by Dan but does that (the definition, not Dan's statement of it!) matter?

I have a Tamron 90mm 1:1 macro lens but in recent weeks have discovered that I can get better "close up" images of small creatures using my 300mm + 1.4x TC (the DoF is better). Does this mean I am not shooting macro any more, or should we stop using "macro" and talk about "close up" instead?

I do a lot of this sort of photography, and I find worrying about what constitutes "macro" to be a distraction at best. It's useful in discussing lenses to specify the maximum magnification, for example, to figure out which equipment is best, but I don't think it is useful in most cases to worry about it in doing photography. When I do flowers, for example, I sometimes do a series at varying distances. I don't ever worry about which are close to 1:1. For that purpose, I use the term macro to mean "very close up," not anything more specific.

[Tri Danimal]

I guess I'll have to rethink what Macro means to me. I would like to be able to capture bugs in the wild without disrupting them. I assume I would need a macro for that. Maybe just a decent tele?

Maybe I'll just try using the glass that I have and see if I can get photos that make me happy. If I can do that then I can use the money saved to fill my gas tank for the next adventure.

[DanK]

I guess I'll have to rethink what Macro means to me. I would like to be able to capture bugs in the wild without disrupting them. I assume I would need a macro for that. Maybe just a decent tele?

Maybe I'll just try using the glass that I have and see if I can get photos that make me happy. If I can do that then I can use the money saved to fill my gas tank for the next adventure.

For full-body photos of large bugs--for example, dragonflies--you can get good shots with a telephoto that focuses relatively close, although not close to 1:1. However, if you go that route, be sure to check minimum focusing distance and maximum magnification, as many will not get you close enough. You can also add extension tubes to a telephoto, although the loss of light makes focusing harder.

For close-ups of most bugs, IMHO, you need a real macro lens, and I would not go any shorter than 90mm. the big disagreement among bug photographers is between those who use lenses in the 90-105 mm range and those that use 150-180mm. The longer lenses give you more reach, but they add weight and are harder to handhold. In fact, I find that 1:1 is a bit too low for some bug shots, and my most common rig is a 100mm lens with a 36mm extension tube, which gets me to roughly 1.5:1. For example, both of the following were shot that way, at close to minimum focusing distance:





this one, I think, you could get without the tube, although I suspect I had it on and just backed up a bit:

[Tri Danimal]

I think I might a set of extension tubes for my lens. It seems to be the best bang for my buck right now.

I also just ordered the 18-105mm for my A6500 so my wallet needs a little more time to recover from the purchase.

[DanK]

I think I might a set of extension tubes for my lens. It seems to be the best bang for my buck right now.

I also just ordered the 18-105mm for my A6500 so my wallet needs a little more time to recover from the purchase.

Extension tubes are a cheap way to get additional magnification with any lens. However, they reduce light proportionately, so if you attach them to a slow lens, you may have difficulty focusing. Also, the really cheap ones lack electrical connections. A good-quality option with electrical connections is the Kenko set. You can stack them, so the Kenko set gives you up to 68mm of extension.

[rpcrowe]

Your 18-105mm doesn't allow particularly close focus. The image ratio of the naked lens is only about 1:9.

I am not sure how well this lens would adapt to close up shooting with either a set of extension tubes or closeup filters (which might be another choice)

Kenko extension tubes are great but, are often a PITA to use since you need to take the lens off and insert the tube or tubes between the lens and the body. ; plus, you do not have a focusing ability from 1:1 to infinity which is possible with the macro lens. If the focus range of your normal lens + extension tubes, you need to remove the lens and choose another tube or combination of tubes. IMO, this might not be quite slow...

One of the main reasons I like my A6500 is the size and weight. I carry the body, three lenses, four batteries, UV filters plus a polarizer and an ND filter along with a Godox TT350S flash and diffuser at the remarkably light weight of a bit over 4-pounds (~2 kilograms) including the camera bag.

Using an adapted lens would increase the weight of any A6500 outfit. My MC-11 adapter adds weight as would a Megabones adapter. It would also add cost, unless you already have an adapter.

So basically, it is a choice between the 50mm and 30mm Sony macros.

50mm would give you some additional working room between lens and subject which would be good for shooting little critters and it should make a dandy portrait lens for the A6500. I use a Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens for portraits and I love it. However, it might be a bit long if you have "This glass will be mounted on my A6500 most of the time."

30mm would be very tight when shooting close up shots of critters. If the are nasty little tropical bugs, it might also be dangerous. However, 30mm is just about a perfect focal length to have mounted on your camera "most of the time"...

A cheaper alternative than a set of extension tubes but with a bit of extra weight would be a screw mount macro lens such as this Macro Takumar which costs a bit over $50 USD. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-50mm...t4~c:rk:9:pf:0
An M-42 to E mount adapter could cost around $10. So for a bit over $60 USD total, you would have an excellent macro capability. It would be manual focus of course, but with the great Sony A6500 focus peaking capability, there should be absolutely no problem with macro focusing this lens.

[DanK]

also, the longer the focal length of the lens, the less magnification provided by an extension of any given length

[Tri Danimal]

Thanks for the info guys. Its really appreciated.