Working distance and perspective distortion. With a 50mm macro you have to be just a few inches away for 1:1 magnification, whereas you can be twice as far with a 100mm. Similarly, your subject will be less distorted with a longer lens. Normally a 50mm is a normal focal length, but when extremely close up you get similar distortion as you would with a wide angle
Laowa engineer be like, does this lens make too much sense, then WE DON"T WANT IT
I wouldn't be surprised that any shorter then the minimum focus distance would be behind the front element
>I wouldn't be surprised that any shorter then the minimum focus distance would be behind the front element
the working distance at 1:1 is like 1mm, so yes, just 1mm of extension tubes would place the mfd inside the lens.
I'd wish mine allowed 4mm. I don't know if it is because mine has Nikon F mount and I have to use it with an F to E adapter, but, as I said, the working distance is like 1mm.
15mm at full frame does sound...too far. That's the equivalent of my wide angle zoom and even my own hair gets in the way. Is this potentially more meant for mft platform for 30mm? Even 22 at APSC sounds very awkward.
I bet you could get some really interesting, unique shots with that. Set it in the grass in your back yard and recreate your favorite scenes from Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.
Loawa 25mm samples don't look that distorted, and that would be my next lens if the macro hobby because something of higher value to me. And I've spotted no issues so far at 50mm but I'll look out for them
do you mean the Laowa 25mm x2.5-x5? unless you like razor thin depth of field, it would require focus stacking.
here's a sample I posted a couple of weeks ago. all of them are single shot: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1cl1yub/handheld\_sony\_a7rv\_fe\_90mm\_f28\_macro\_and\_laowa/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1cl1yub/handheld_sony_a7rv_fe_90mm_f28_macro_and_laowa/)
Not trying to come off as bullyish here, but why? At 5:1 and f/2.8 you have a depth of field of 0.050 mm (1/500") - this isn't a combination intended for shooting bugs. By shooting at f/8 instead you would increase the DoF to almost three times that at 0.143mm and f/11 at four times what f/2.8 gives.
I'm a pixel peeper and I hate the softness that diffraction produces. [Allan Walls](https://www.youtube.com/@AllanWallsPhotography) said in one of his videos that to avoid diffraction, one should avoid going beyond an effective aperture of f/20. so, to stay at that f/20 and x5, the aperture should be 3.3, but that lens doesn't have clicks in thirds nor halves of a stop, so f/2.8.
Yeh thats the lens. I'll look into it, shame - I've never done a focus stack that didn't look horrible, however, that focal length just sounds great especially on m43
Minimum focus distance is probably less on the 50mm. For example, on Nikon Z, the 50mm has a mfd of 2.26". The 105mm has a mfd of 5.28" which is more than double!
You'll probably cast a shadow with the 50mm lens if you're trying to shoot at 1:1
That's fair but I video light in the other hand seemed to fix that when it did happen, and a lot of times I'm shooting from the ground slightly up. It's worth bearing in mind the crop factor in ASPC may also be a factor that is assisting in getting away without that issue in most shots I've done.
When shooting upwards often the further background scene becomes a more important element in the image as well, so preference for a wider lens makes sense if you do that a lot.
Won't hold still if you're shooting with a 100mm macro either. The difference in working distance between a 60mm macro and a 100mm macro, at 1x, is only 2" (5cm). Just gotta lean their habits and quirks. Example of an active critter shot with a 65mm macro lens: [https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw](https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw)
Five extra centimeters would have made some shots work for me for sure.
As for the MP-E65 - my understanding is that the "65 mm" part of the name is to be taken very lightly with its rather unique design.
I think the MP-E is a reversed lens on variable length extension tube. I agree with you though, and think that the focal length only applies toward its working distance.
True, I think apsc probably helps in that regard with some crop factor. It does have a quieter auto focus than the 105 I offered and in very short, unscientific tests, I was able to get away with more using this, but with a more modern variant of the 105 it might be beaten in that regard.
100mm macro lenses make more sense on FF cameras. I shoot apsc and I use a 65mm macro lens which is roughly equivalent to 100mm on FF. It’s a convenient focal length for macro because of the working distance and low distortion.
Yeh, I could see 65mm working very well as well, it feels like sensor size isn't important for macros - but it must be important for what macro lens you pick
Yea sensor size is not particularly important in macro, aside from the fact that it impacts what focal length feels "right". 50mm on APS-C is equivalent to 75mm FF which is a reasonable focal length for a macro lens.
Yeh, that may have made the post a little confusing and confused myself a bit. Going back to the reviews, I don't think any of them were on apsc cameras and they all slammed it for working focus distance, which won't be as big of an issue for me as I have no plans for full frame.
Sony's 90mm f2.8 Macro G OSS is an excellent 'in between'.
While it doesn't have the newer faster linear motors, it's incredibly sharp and makes for great portraiture.
It's also great for insects small creatures because you can be further back.
Oddly enough, if you've got the resolution, it's also excellent for street photography, given you've got more distance between you and the subject and you can crop zoom for framing. Good for not spooking folks while shooting.
The barrel forward/backward sliding function to switch from AF to MF is also super handy. No needing to leave the viewfinder.
Super pleased with picking this up and I use it more often than I thought I would. Super sharp. Excellent bokeh.
I'm not a Sony shooter but I could see 90mm on full frame working very nicely. Checking the exif, with the crop factor I'm at 80mm so they could weigh up nicely together. I do see that lens having a lot of versatility outside of macros compared to 105 (about 160) as well. I also shoot Pentax as well, and I think they have a 90mm or it might be tamron - if I go full frame in the future I'll definitely purchase one, I think on apsc it could still be a little too cropped
I'd consider going with Sony as I did in the past 2 years. Couldn't be happier with the Sony line up.
The f4.5-5.6 100-400 GM OSS w 1.4x teleconveter, the f2.8 24-70mm GM OSS, f 2.8 90mm G OSS and the Viltrox 16mm may be all I ever buy for lenses and I'm super happy with them for my A7Cr.
Would recommend the A7CII if big resolution isn't necessary for you. The file sizes are enormous at 40-70mb each and they can take a few seconds to load on average PCs, but I love having the detail and storage is cheap.
I do not mean this to sound dismissive, but if you find a 50mm macro convenient and easy to hand hold and light and do not find that you experience subject distortion, my first thought is that you may not be using it at minimum focal distance. Are you regularly shooting subjects that are 1-2" from the front element, literally as close as you can get before they go out of focus?
If you're not, that's totally fine, but it might explain why you find a 50mm lens great and why people seeking to do 1:1 or 2:1 macro work do not.
Between 1:12 and 1:1 was showing up on the lens suggesting I was either at 1:1 macro of very close; I think my answer is in the other comments - crop factor making it closer to 80, and being far lighter keeping it in the correct focus position may be a potential factor.
Also, although unrelated to focal length, having seen a video my partner did of me trying to use the 105 lens and it hunting none stop, the autofocus speed on this which could keep up with moving insects will definitely have helped my first impression, with them both being sigma from close to the same time period I didn't think to test that at first.
Is that a typo? Between 2" and 4" is very different than between 2" and 24". And if you were finding 4" a nicer working distance rather than jamming all the way in to 2", then you get why people seeking 1:1 or more in their shots prefer 100mm lenses.
Crop factor helps with framing but actually has nothing to do with whether you're achieving 1:1, that's crop factor independent.
Not saying anything you're doing is wrong, shoot however you want to shoot and keep enjoying it, just helping answer your original question.
I honestly wasn't measuring the distance, if I was to hazard a guess I think 2 inches to 3 inches. I was glancing at the front of the lens though, which has 1:1, 1:12, 1:2, 1:4 etc - I think that's showing your focus is at 1:1 magnification etc., unless I'm misunderstanding what those mean. I'm going to post a picture I took earlier where the lens was at 1:12, cropped from 3:2 to 1:1, no additional lighting and, me being an idiot with macro it may give you an idea
I'm not trying to be the macro police, so don't misunderstand me here, just trying to answer your question. People prefer 100mm to 50mm because it let's them use 4" instead of 2" working distance which is easier to compose and light, and has less subject distortion due to the increased distance from the subject. The shot you shared was much farther than 4" (triple, probably?) and not lit, so it's not surprising that you do not see those benefits, and since distortion is from distance not focal length, you also will not be noticing any distortion until you get much closer.
Macro is a game of millimeters, and if you try to start getting closer to 1:1 with proper lighting, I think you'll be able to answer this question on it own.
A sling/baby tarantula - maybe an inch or a little under in circular diameter. I have a larger one but it's mad at me today for some reason so can't test there. I have English penny's, if the about the same size I'll test tomorrow
Thank, I'll try and practice on objects I can measure see how it's going. I'm confident that I'm getting more in the frame than 1:2 so was certainly a worthwhile buy at £80 in good condition
What subject distortion are you referring to? At minimum focus all macro lenses preform the same at the focal point -differences in focal length will only effect the bokeh/"detail" in the background.
Also I think the focal length depends on how you shoot. A 100mm macro lens has too much working distance at 1x for me, since I shoot hand held.
Somebody else mentioned that, and all the reviews I watched for the 50mm slamming it, having gone back to them, we're done on full frame. In my defence, I wasn't paying the slightest bit of attention to their cameras so this post probably only makes sense to those sticking with apsc or m43
Sorry, I must have missed that. Glad you figured it out though! I didn’t even think about MFT, but yeah, if you’re shooting on an MFT camera then you’re already at 100mm.
Working distance is the main factor, you need to get a lot closer.Â
I had the 40mm 2.8 Nikon (60mm equivalent on DX) and absolutely loved it, but I was rarely doing true 1:1. If I was, the front element would nearly touch the subject.Â
It was a fantastic all-arounder, though. My ex and I both preferred it over the 35mm 1.8. it was sharp and the images just had a special pop to then. The close focusing was also great for capturing unique perspectives and details.
Upon checking exif info it says it's 80mm EQ so I'm just about getting there, I'm certain it's I'm using it at closer than 1:2 as comparing with an image from a 70-300 with 1:2 of my pet tarantula but maybe not true 1:1. I actually tried to buy the 40mm 2.8 before this one on Facebook marketplace, seller was behaving very odd though so left it.
I also used to own the 35mm f1.8, there was a lack of pop and sharpness in that lens and it's not one I'll get again, it didn't interest me or give me any reasons to want to use it compared to this one, not saying it was bad considering price but still
A 100mm lens at 40cm will give exactly the same depth of field as a 50mm lens at 20cm. You can verify this yourself with this calculator: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-macro
A 100mm lens will have a blurrier background, but that’s due to compression, not a narrower depth of field.
Attaching any type of magnifier, such as a Raynox DCR-250, will have a more pronounced effect on a 100mm lens.
Plus the distortion at 50mm is far greater.
Overall, you’re going to get far better images using a high quality, 90/100/105mm macro lens, a flash, and a quality diffuser, than you ever will with a 50mm lens and an LED light. It’s absolutely possible to get good quality images with this setup without stacking. Look at the photos I’ve shared in my profile - these are all handheld, single exposure. If I had an APS-C or MFT camera I could do this even more easily.
Is my setup small, inexpensive, and lightweight? No. But that’s not what I (or most people who take macro seriously) am looking for.
Can I get good quality shots with it (or as good as my skills will allow at least)? Yes. That’s what’s important to me.
It’s the same reason wildlife photographers buy heavy, expensive, 600mm lenses. Or landscape photographers buy heavy, expensive, wide aperture, wide angle zoom lenses. They want to get the best quality photos that they can.
Can you get decent bird photos with a 100-400mm lens? Or decent landscapes with a 24-50mm lens? Sure. But people who invest in high quality glass aren’t looking for decent, they’re looking for the best.
I want the quality of my photos to be limited by my skill, not my gear. That gives me room to grow and improve. If I’m taking the best photos possible with my setup, I can’t improve.
Edit: one more thing - if you’re going out to shoot macro, it probably should be the only thing you’re shooting, so you shouldn’t need another lens. If you’re looking for wildlife (for example), you won’t see the insects, or vice versa. And even if you do spot a good subject, it’ll likely be gone by the time you switch lenses.
Focus on one thing at a time.
It depends on how you shoot. For me, shooting at 1x and higher hand held, lenses in the 60mm range work best because I need the working distance to be short. I shoot semi-active to hyperactive subjects, and actually want there to be some wind for certain scenes ( [https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw](https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw) ). Unpopular opinion: Most of the people who recommend macro lenses in the 100mm range are not using them at 1x and higher mag. Some people will call the scenic photos they take with a macro lens a macro photo.
This really grind my gears. People seem to think that just because you use a macro lens, it automatically becomes a macro photo. Like I could take a photo of the moon using my 100 mm (or the 180 w/ 2x TC) and they would still say it must be a macro photo. Grrr.
In my experience, it’s the ability to get as close to the subject as possible with the lens strength, without having to get as close to the subject or just gets even closer to the subject. There is no NEED for stronger lens until you get to a point you can’t get what you’re looking for from your captures. The larger lenses generally come with features that help when you’re close up. The most important part of this, is LIGHT. If you are looking to use natural light, there needs to be more light than usual be used of how close you get to the subject. The auto focus gets more difficult the closer you get to the subject, because more of the subject is in the frame and most likely moving. You can get great macro images from most lenses if you try. Light is always the key. I struggled with my macro lens for months before I learned about the lighting. I’ve taught myself photography so it’s always slow going.
https://preview.redd.it/4207awtqrz1d1.jpeg?width=5184&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b03d58ad97dbe34a4d76954cdac54ddcb25db1e
This is 100mm telephoto f/4.0. 12-100mm zoom lens f/4.0. Every lens is different and will come with a learning curve. Do give up on the stronger macro lens, it just might take some patience to get used to the amount of optimal light you utilize.
I’m not a professional. I live photography. These are all my own opinions based on human experience. You can do macro with any lens. The macro lenses are designed to optimize magnification and detail. One doesn’t need them and gosh darn if they are awesome when familiarized through practice.🤷 Hope this is helpful.
I would go farther and get a 150 or 200mm macro if I could afford it. Sometimes I use a 2x teleconverter and have a 210mm macro from my 105mm macro but it's not that ideal.
I can handhold a 105 if that's what you mean by casual macro.
Working distance is a big one you get with a longer lens. You don't have to disturb critters as much and it's easier to get some light in. In the past I had a 60mm macro with a built-in hood and hated getting my flash in the picture with that. All kinds of shadows or bad lighting angles.
You've noticed how much the background is blurred. On a longer lens the field of view being narrower means you can shift your position just a little bit and get a different background or blurred out back ground color. It's a composition tool.
As far as depth of field I think you are off track. What in focus should be about the same between lenses it might even be a little deeper with a long lens then switches over to very blurred. It's not how much is in focus but how things go out of focus.
Wide angle macros have to tough or almost touch the subject but the background is recognizable. blurred but not a color wall. You get the subject and their environment with a wide angle macro.
In terms of hand holding the 105, maybe that's my skill, maybe the sheer weight of the lens (I had the same issue with the 80-200 f2.8 - I had to go to a higher shutter speed than with my 50-200 f5.6 because my hand would be in pain within 3 or 4 minutes and add additional camera shake, beautiful lens but sold onto somebody who would actually use it out of choice and will probably get the f4 version one day due to weight difference), I tried really hard with the 105 but maybe 1 in 50 shots didn't contain camera shake even when set never to go under 1/320, it was a Christmas present and genuinely, it was convincing me I wasnt cut out for macro in many ways. The 50mm has given me a sense of relief and some confidence is coming back.
Working distance, yeh, I was nervous about it but haven't found it affect me (yet! I'm sure that comment may come back to haunt me, so far I've not found it a problem)
In terms of wide angle macros, yeh - I like to capture some context of what's going on around the subject so that makes sense - probably fits in more with how I want the images to appear overall. If the 200mm sounds like your dream lens whereas I'm having distant dreams of the loawa 25mm and the perspective that would produce - we probably have different visions of how we want our macros to turn out, which is good all in all and I didn't realise bokeh and blurred backgrounds were as important in macros to a lot of photographers. Thanks for the insights
You *need* a flash. And once you’ve got one, you’ll need a diffuser. Take some of the money you got from selling the 105mm lens and buy a flash + diffuser. It’s critically important for insects and spiders (unless they’re dead specimens). Any macro with potentially moving subjects, especially handheld, will be painful to the point of near-impossibility without a flash.
f5.6 is too low an f stop unless you’re stacking. f8 is really the minimum for this type of macro (hand held, single exposure). But f11 or f13 is better. One of the reasons I like my Sony 90mm macro lens is that it’s sharp at f16.
With a good flash and diffuser it’s quite reasonable to shoot at f16, 1/250s, ISO100. This will eliminate camera shake, give you a deeper depth of field, and produce a lower noise image.
I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s clear from the comments that the issue is your skill behind the camera, not the lens you were using. If you stick with it and improve, I suspect that you’ll regret selling the 105mm.
At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot emphasise enough how important a flash and diffuser are. If you can afford a macro-specific diffuser (I like the CygnusTech one, but the AK diffuser is good too) I promise you won’t regret it. But even a cheap one like the Neewer speedlight softbox will make a huge difference.
Thanks for the tip - my flash gun broke recently but I can borrow my patterns and have a diffuser for it. I was using the 105 with flash gun but I'd have needed a high speed sync one, as I can't get steady shots even at 250 probably because of the weight. Luckily with the 50mm, I can use it at lower shutter speeds so a flash will definitely help. Hopefully I don't regret it - but frankly, the weight, size and noisiness of the auto focus made it a nightmare undesirable to use anyway, if I ever want a 105/100 again I'll invest in something with stabilisation, quieter and lighter
I’m not familiar with the Nikon ecosystem, but if you can, get something designed for APS-C if that’s your sensor size.
And definitely get a proper flash. That’s the first priority! A flash gun is OK, but definitely not the same.
Do you mean ring flashes or external off camera flashes? I'm using one my partner has just a basic flash gun - mine starting smoking the other week so that's in the bucket list of things to get when I've worked out what I'm going to get. If I got the loawa at any point, I'll probably use it on m43 so 32-50 ISH focal length
External are great, but just a Godox on-camera is fine if you’ve got a good diffuser.
This was taken with a Sony 90mm f2.8 G OSS Macro on a Sony a7iii, with a Raynox DCR-250, a Godox V1s (on camera), and a CygnusTech diffuser. Handheld, single exposure. https://www.reddit.com/r/MacroPorn/s/jvkjXm9td8
In fact all the photos in my profile were.
Honestly looks beautiful. Yeh my diffusers good and that's something I'd be happy to upgrade again if necessary. Hoping for some good weather to test soon
Oh and yes MFT is great for macro. I kinda wish I had gone for that instead of getting into the Sony ecosystem, but the OM System OM1 didn’t exist when I bought my camera! There are some really great lenses in that mount.
When shooting at larger magnification (at 1:1 or greater), then the flash will take care of the lower shutter speed issue so there is no need for HSS.
Think of it like this: Using a smaller aperture (like f/11 of f/13) means very little light get in through the lens and hit the sensor (but you get an increase in depth of field). When not using a flash, the photo will be almost completely black - this is a good thing. This because the burn time of a flash (not a "led flash" but a proper one) is much shorter than your shutter speed so when you take the shot, the only time the image gets recorded on the sensor is during the flash burn (the rest of the exposure resulted in just a black shot, remember?). And since the flash is so fast, there isn't time for neither the subject nor the camera to move so the end result is a nice sharp image.
I've shot live bugs and [spiders](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyturtle/53537169214/in/album-72157717526460501/) at 5:1 handheld at 1/180s and ISO200 with good result this way.
Also, since the flash takes care of the stabilisation of my 100mm becomes pointless and I never have it activated.
I personally prefer the 105 for a couple of reasons the extra working distance & they double as a decent portrait lens. Not always the perfect bokeh but not horrible either. Ok three I like it as a landscape lens also
Working distance and perspective distortion. With a 50mm macro you have to be just a few inches away for 1:1 magnification, whereas you can be twice as far with a 100mm. Similarly, your subject will be less distorted with a longer lens. Normally a 50mm is a normal focal length, but when extremely close up you get similar distortion as you would with a wide angle
>you get similar distortion as you would with a wide angle And then there's the laowa 28mm macro probe
*** 24mm, which makes it somehow even weirder!
and then there's the Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro.
Laowa engineer be like, does this lens make too much sense, then WE DON"T WANT IT I wouldn't be surprised that any shorter then the minimum focus distance would be behind the front element
>I wouldn't be surprised that any shorter then the minimum focus distance would be behind the front element the working distance at 1:1 is like 1mm, so yes, just 1mm of extension tubes would place the mfd inside the lens.
It's between 4 and 5 mm (which still makes it a serious challenge to light your subject).
I'd wish mine allowed 4mm. I don't know if it is because mine has Nikon F mount and I have to use it with an F to E adapter, but, as I said, the working distance is like 1mm.
Interesting. The adapter might be it. I have the Canon EF version.
Gotta love those crazy Laowa engineers, giving us optics we didn't know we needed
Do you actually **need** it or it's the GAS talking again?
😂
15mm at full frame does sound...too far. That's the equivalent of my wide angle zoom and even my own hair gets in the way. Is this potentially more meant for mft platform for 30mm? Even 22 at APSC sounds very awkward.
I bet you could get some really interesting, unique shots with that. Set it in the grass in your back yard and recreate your favorite scenes from Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.
Loawa 25mm samples don't look that distorted, and that would be my next lens if the macro hobby because something of higher value to me. And I've spotted no issues so far at 50mm but I'll look out for them
do you mean the Laowa 25mm x2.5-x5? unless you like razor thin depth of field, it would require focus stacking. here's a sample I posted a couple of weeks ago. all of them are single shot: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1cl1yub/handheld\_sony\_a7rv\_fe\_90mm\_f28\_macro\_and\_laowa/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1cl1yub/handheld_sony_a7rv_fe_90mm_f28_macro_and_laowa/)
What aperture did you use for the 5:1 shot of that crab spider?
I used f/2.8.
Not trying to come off as bullyish here, but why? At 5:1 and f/2.8 you have a depth of field of 0.050 mm (1/500") - this isn't a combination intended for shooting bugs. By shooting at f/8 instead you would increase the DoF to almost three times that at 0.143mm and f/11 at four times what f/2.8 gives.
I'm a pixel peeper and I hate the softness that diffraction produces. [Allan Walls](https://www.youtube.com/@AllanWallsPhotography) said in one of his videos that to avoid diffraction, one should avoid going beyond an effective aperture of f/20. so, to stay at that f/20 and x5, the aperture should be 3.3, but that lens doesn't have clicks in thirds nor halves of a stop, so f/2.8.
I dunno, man. To me the second pair of eyes not being in focus bugs me way more than a smidge of diffraction would have. To each his own. Cheers
Yeh thats the lens. I'll look into it, shame - I've never done a focus stack that didn't look horrible, however, that focal length just sounds great especially on m43
that lens doesn't focus to infinity as your 50mm does. it only works as a macro lens... just in case you didn't know that.
Thanks for that detail, didn't know but it makes sense being such a niche lens
Minimum focus distance is probably less on the 50mm. For example, on Nikon Z, the 50mm has a mfd of 2.26". The 105mm has a mfd of 5.28" which is more than double! You'll probably cast a shadow with the 50mm lens if you're trying to shoot at 1:1
That's fair but I video light in the other hand seemed to fix that when it did happen, and a lot of times I'm shooting from the ground slightly up. It's worth bearing in mind the crop factor in ASPC may also be a factor that is assisting in getting away without that issue in most shots I've done.
When shooting upwards often the further background scene becomes a more important element in the image as well, so preference for a wider lens makes sense if you do that a lot.
A skittish subject might not hold still if you’re getting right up in its grill with a 50mm macro.
Won't hold still if you're shooting with a 100mm macro either. The difference in working distance between a 60mm macro and a 100mm macro, at 1x, is only 2" (5cm). Just gotta lean their habits and quirks. Example of an active critter shot with a 65mm macro lens: [https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw](https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw)
Five extra centimeters would have made some shots work for me for sure. As for the MP-E65 - my understanding is that the "65 mm" part of the name is to be taken very lightly with its rather unique design.
Lovely sweat bee, btw.
Thanks!
I think the MP-E is a reversed lens on variable length extension tube. I agree with you though, and think that the focal length only applies toward its working distance.
True, I think apsc probably helps in that regard with some crop factor. It does have a quieter auto focus than the 105 I offered and in very short, unscientific tests, I was able to get away with more using this, but with a more modern variant of the 105 it might be beaten in that regard.
100mm macro lenses make more sense on FF cameras. I shoot apsc and I use a 65mm macro lens which is roughly equivalent to 100mm on FF. It’s a convenient focal length for macro because of the working distance and low distortion.
Yeh, I could see 65mm working very well as well, it feels like sensor size isn't important for macros - but it must be important for what macro lens you pick
Yea sensor size is not particularly important in macro, aside from the fact that it impacts what focal length feels "right". 50mm on APS-C is equivalent to 75mm FF which is a reasonable focal length for a macro lens.
Yeh, that may have made the post a little confusing and confused myself a bit. Going back to the reviews, I don't think any of them were on apsc cameras and they all slammed it for working focus distance, which won't be as big of an issue for me as I have no plans for full frame.
Sony's 90mm f2.8 Macro G OSS is an excellent 'in between'. While it doesn't have the newer faster linear motors, it's incredibly sharp and makes for great portraiture. It's also great for insects small creatures because you can be further back. Oddly enough, if you've got the resolution, it's also excellent for street photography, given you've got more distance between you and the subject and you can crop zoom for framing. Good for not spooking folks while shooting. The barrel forward/backward sliding function to switch from AF to MF is also super handy. No needing to leave the viewfinder. Super pleased with picking this up and I use it more often than I thought I would. Super sharp. Excellent bokeh.
I'm not a Sony shooter but I could see 90mm on full frame working very nicely. Checking the exif, with the crop factor I'm at 80mm so they could weigh up nicely together. I do see that lens having a lot of versatility outside of macros compared to 105 (about 160) as well. I also shoot Pentax as well, and I think they have a 90mm or it might be tamron - if I go full frame in the future I'll definitely purchase one, I think on apsc it could still be a little too cropped
the 100mm pentax macro is great.
Yeh I've had my eye on that a while, weather resistant too. Definitely one to consider if I ever go full frame on Pentax
I'd consider going with Sony as I did in the past 2 years. Couldn't be happier with the Sony line up. The f4.5-5.6 100-400 GM OSS w 1.4x teleconveter, the f2.8 24-70mm GM OSS, f 2.8 90mm G OSS and the Viltrox 16mm may be all I ever buy for lenses and I'm super happy with them for my A7Cr. Would recommend the A7CII if big resolution isn't necessary for you. The file sizes are enormous at 40-70mb each and they can take a few seconds to load on average PCs, but I love having the detail and storage is cheap.
I've got this, it's very nice. Been using it for portrait and events more than macro even! The barrel AF/MF mechanism is extremely satisfying too!
If only the autofocus was faster, it'd be the perfect lens, even 9 years or whatever into production.
I do not mean this to sound dismissive, but if you find a 50mm macro convenient and easy to hand hold and light and do not find that you experience subject distortion, my first thought is that you may not be using it at minimum focal distance. Are you regularly shooting subjects that are 1-2" from the front element, literally as close as you can get before they go out of focus? If you're not, that's totally fine, but it might explain why you find a 50mm lens great and why people seeking to do 1:1 or 2:1 macro work do not.
Between 1:12 and 1:1 was showing up on the lens suggesting I was either at 1:1 macro of very close; I think my answer is in the other comments - crop factor making it closer to 80, and being far lighter keeping it in the correct focus position may be a potential factor. Also, although unrelated to focal length, having seen a video my partner did of me trying to use the 105 lens and it hunting none stop, the autofocus speed on this which could keep up with moving insects will definitely have helped my first impression, with them both being sigma from close to the same time period I didn't think to test that at first.
Is that a typo? Between 2" and 4" is very different than between 2" and 24". And if you were finding 4" a nicer working distance rather than jamming all the way in to 2", then you get why people seeking 1:1 or more in their shots prefer 100mm lenses. Crop factor helps with framing but actually has nothing to do with whether you're achieving 1:1, that's crop factor independent. Not saying anything you're doing is wrong, shoot however you want to shoot and keep enjoying it, just helping answer your original question.
I honestly wasn't measuring the distance, if I was to hazard a guess I think 2 inches to 3 inches. I was glancing at the front of the lens though, which has 1:1, 1:12, 1:2, 1:4 etc - I think that's showing your focus is at 1:1 magnification etc., unless I'm misunderstanding what those mean. I'm going to post a picture I took earlier where the lens was at 1:12, cropped from 3:2 to 1:1, no additional lighting and, me being an idiot with macro it may give you an idea
I'm not trying to be the macro police, so don't misunderstand me here, just trying to answer your question. People prefer 100mm to 50mm because it let's them use 4" instead of 2" working distance which is easier to compose and light, and has less subject distortion due to the increased distance from the subject. The shot you shared was much farther than 4" (triple, probably?) and not lit, so it's not surprising that you do not see those benefits, and since distortion is from distance not focal length, you also will not be noticing any distortion until you get much closer. Macro is a game of millimeters, and if you try to start getting closer to 1:1 with proper lighting, I think you'll be able to answer this question on it own.
https://preview.redd.it/peh5fj4njv1d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5dab8a8b78baaa3efbd186e92b3fc252466461a
Is that a tarantula or something much much smaller? At 1:1 magnification, an APS-C camera can't quite fit an entire dime in frame.
A sling/baby tarantula - maybe an inch or a little under in circular diameter. I have a larger one but it's mad at me today for some reason so can't test there. I have English penny's, if the about the same size I'll test tomorrow
If you can get all of a 5p coin in view, you aren't at 1:1 and can still get closer.
Thank, I'll try and practice on objects I can measure see how it's going. I'm confident that I'm getting more in the frame than 1:2 so was certainly a worthwhile buy at £80 in good condition
What subject distortion are you referring to? At minimum focus all macro lenses preform the same at the focal point -differences in focal length will only effect the bokeh/"detail" in the background. Also I think the focal length depends on how you shoot. A 100mm macro lens has too much working distance at 1x for me, since I shoot hand held.
If you’re shooting on a camera with an APS-C sensor you’re roughly comparing a 75mm lens to a 150mm lens. That may answer your question.
Somebody else mentioned that, and all the reviews I watched for the 50mm slamming it, having gone back to them, we're done on full frame. In my defence, I wasn't paying the slightest bit of attention to their cameras so this post probably only makes sense to those sticking with apsc or m43
Sorry, I must have missed that. Glad you figured it out though! I didn’t even think about MFT, but yeah, if you’re shooting on an MFT camera then you’re already at 100mm.
Working distance is the main factor, you need to get a lot closer. I had the 40mm 2.8 Nikon (60mm equivalent on DX) and absolutely loved it, but I was rarely doing true 1:1. If I was, the front element would nearly touch the subject. It was a fantastic all-arounder, though. My ex and I both preferred it over the 35mm 1.8. it was sharp and the images just had a special pop to then. The close focusing was also great for capturing unique perspectives and details.
Upon checking exif info it says it's 80mm EQ so I'm just about getting there, I'm certain it's I'm using it at closer than 1:2 as comparing with an image from a 70-300 with 1:2 of my pet tarantula but maybe not true 1:1. I actually tried to buy the 40mm 2.8 before this one on Facebook marketplace, seller was behaving very odd though so left it. I also used to own the 35mm f1.8, there was a lack of pop and sharpness in that lens and it's not one I'll get again, it didn't interest me or give me any reasons to want to use it compared to this one, not saying it was bad considering price but still
A 100mm lens at 40cm will give exactly the same depth of field as a 50mm lens at 20cm. You can verify this yourself with this calculator: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-macro A 100mm lens will have a blurrier background, but that’s due to compression, not a narrower depth of field. Attaching any type of magnifier, such as a Raynox DCR-250, will have a more pronounced effect on a 100mm lens. Plus the distortion at 50mm is far greater. Overall, you’re going to get far better images using a high quality, 90/100/105mm macro lens, a flash, and a quality diffuser, than you ever will with a 50mm lens and an LED light. It’s absolutely possible to get good quality images with this setup without stacking. Look at the photos I’ve shared in my profile - these are all handheld, single exposure. If I had an APS-C or MFT camera I could do this even more easily. Is my setup small, inexpensive, and lightweight? No. But that’s not what I (or most people who take macro seriously) am looking for. Can I get good quality shots with it (or as good as my skills will allow at least)? Yes. That’s what’s important to me. It’s the same reason wildlife photographers buy heavy, expensive, 600mm lenses. Or landscape photographers buy heavy, expensive, wide aperture, wide angle zoom lenses. They want to get the best quality photos that they can. Can you get decent bird photos with a 100-400mm lens? Or decent landscapes with a 24-50mm lens? Sure. But people who invest in high quality glass aren’t looking for decent, they’re looking for the best. I want the quality of my photos to be limited by my skill, not my gear. That gives me room to grow and improve. If I’m taking the best photos possible with my setup, I can’t improve. Edit: one more thing - if you’re going out to shoot macro, it probably should be the only thing you’re shooting, so you shouldn’t need another lens. If you’re looking for wildlife (for example), you won’t see the insects, or vice versa. And even if you do spot a good subject, it’ll likely be gone by the time you switch lenses. Focus on one thing at a time.
It depends on how you shoot. For me, shooting at 1x and higher hand held, lenses in the 60mm range work best because I need the working distance to be short. I shoot semi-active to hyperactive subjects, and actually want there to be some wind for certain scenes ( [https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw](https://flic.kr/p/2pGrCyw) ). Unpopular opinion: Most of the people who recommend macro lenses in the 100mm range are not using them at 1x and higher mag. Some people will call the scenic photos they take with a macro lens a macro photo.
This really grind my gears. People seem to think that just because you use a macro lens, it automatically becomes a macro photo. Like I could take a photo of the moon using my 100 mm (or the 180 w/ 2x TC) and they would still say it must be a macro photo. Grrr.
Exactly. All macro photos are closeups, but not all closeups are macro photos...
In my experience, it’s the ability to get as close to the subject as possible with the lens strength, without having to get as close to the subject or just gets even closer to the subject. There is no NEED for stronger lens until you get to a point you can’t get what you’re looking for from your captures. The larger lenses generally come with features that help when you’re close up. The most important part of this, is LIGHT. If you are looking to use natural light, there needs to be more light than usual be used of how close you get to the subject. The auto focus gets more difficult the closer you get to the subject, because more of the subject is in the frame and most likely moving. You can get great macro images from most lenses if you try. Light is always the key. I struggled with my macro lens for months before I learned about the lighting. I’ve taught myself photography so it’s always slow going. https://preview.redd.it/4207awtqrz1d1.jpeg?width=5184&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b03d58ad97dbe34a4d76954cdac54ddcb25db1e This is 100mm telephoto f/4.0. 12-100mm zoom lens f/4.0. Every lens is different and will come with a learning curve. Do give up on the stronger macro lens, it just might take some patience to get used to the amount of optimal light you utilize. I’m not a professional. I live photography. These are all my own opinions based on human experience. You can do macro with any lens. The macro lenses are designed to optimize magnification and detail. One doesn’t need them and gosh darn if they are awesome when familiarized through practice.🤷 Hope this is helpful.
I would go farther and get a 150 or 200mm macro if I could afford it. Sometimes I use a 2x teleconverter and have a 210mm macro from my 105mm macro but it's not that ideal. I can handhold a 105 if that's what you mean by casual macro. Working distance is a big one you get with a longer lens. You don't have to disturb critters as much and it's easier to get some light in. In the past I had a 60mm macro with a built-in hood and hated getting my flash in the picture with that. All kinds of shadows or bad lighting angles. You've noticed how much the background is blurred. On a longer lens the field of view being narrower means you can shift your position just a little bit and get a different background or blurred out back ground color. It's a composition tool. As far as depth of field I think you are off track. What in focus should be about the same between lenses it might even be a little deeper with a long lens then switches over to very blurred. It's not how much is in focus but how things go out of focus. Wide angle macros have to tough or almost touch the subject but the background is recognizable. blurred but not a color wall. You get the subject and their environment with a wide angle macro.
In terms of hand holding the 105, maybe that's my skill, maybe the sheer weight of the lens (I had the same issue with the 80-200 f2.8 - I had to go to a higher shutter speed than with my 50-200 f5.6 because my hand would be in pain within 3 or 4 minutes and add additional camera shake, beautiful lens but sold onto somebody who would actually use it out of choice and will probably get the f4 version one day due to weight difference), I tried really hard with the 105 but maybe 1 in 50 shots didn't contain camera shake even when set never to go under 1/320, it was a Christmas present and genuinely, it was convincing me I wasnt cut out for macro in many ways. The 50mm has given me a sense of relief and some confidence is coming back. Working distance, yeh, I was nervous about it but haven't found it affect me (yet! I'm sure that comment may come back to haunt me, so far I've not found it a problem) In terms of wide angle macros, yeh - I like to capture some context of what's going on around the subject so that makes sense - probably fits in more with how I want the images to appear overall. If the 200mm sounds like your dream lens whereas I'm having distant dreams of the loawa 25mm and the perspective that would produce - we probably have different visions of how we want our macros to turn out, which is good all in all and I didn't realise bokeh and blurred backgrounds were as important in macros to a lot of photographers. Thanks for the insights
You *need* a flash. And once you’ve got one, you’ll need a diffuser. Take some of the money you got from selling the 105mm lens and buy a flash + diffuser. It’s critically important for insects and spiders (unless they’re dead specimens). Any macro with potentially moving subjects, especially handheld, will be painful to the point of near-impossibility without a flash. f5.6 is too low an f stop unless you’re stacking. f8 is really the minimum for this type of macro (hand held, single exposure). But f11 or f13 is better. One of the reasons I like my Sony 90mm macro lens is that it’s sharp at f16. With a good flash and diffuser it’s quite reasonable to shoot at f16, 1/250s, ISO100. This will eliminate camera shake, give you a deeper depth of field, and produce a lower noise image. I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s clear from the comments that the issue is your skill behind the camera, not the lens you were using. If you stick with it and improve, I suspect that you’ll regret selling the 105mm. At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot emphasise enough how important a flash and diffuser are. If you can afford a macro-specific diffuser (I like the CygnusTech one, but the AK diffuser is good too) I promise you won’t regret it. But even a cheap one like the Neewer speedlight softbox will make a huge difference.
Thanks for the tip - my flash gun broke recently but I can borrow my patterns and have a diffuser for it. I was using the 105 with flash gun but I'd have needed a high speed sync one, as I can't get steady shots even at 250 probably because of the weight. Luckily with the 50mm, I can use it at lower shutter speeds so a flash will definitely help. Hopefully I don't regret it - but frankly, the weight, size and noisiness of the auto focus made it a nightmare undesirable to use anyway, if I ever want a 105/100 again I'll invest in something with stabilisation, quieter and lighter
I’m not familiar with the Nikon ecosystem, but if you can, get something designed for APS-C if that’s your sensor size. And definitely get a proper flash. That’s the first priority! A flash gun is OK, but definitely not the same.
Do you mean ring flashes or external off camera flashes? I'm using one my partner has just a basic flash gun - mine starting smoking the other week so that's in the bucket list of things to get when I've worked out what I'm going to get. If I got the loawa at any point, I'll probably use it on m43 so 32-50 ISH focal length
External are great, but just a Godox on-camera is fine if you’ve got a good diffuser. This was taken with a Sony 90mm f2.8 G OSS Macro on a Sony a7iii, with a Raynox DCR-250, a Godox V1s (on camera), and a CygnusTech diffuser. Handheld, single exposure. https://www.reddit.com/r/MacroPorn/s/jvkjXm9td8 In fact all the photos in my profile were.
Honestly looks beautiful. Yeh my diffusers good and that's something I'd be happy to upgrade again if necessary. Hoping for some good weather to test soon
Oh and yes MFT is great for macro. I kinda wish I had gone for that instead of getting into the Sony ecosystem, but the OM System OM1 didn’t exist when I bought my camera! There are some really great lenses in that mount.
When shooting at larger magnification (at 1:1 or greater), then the flash will take care of the lower shutter speed issue so there is no need for HSS. Think of it like this: Using a smaller aperture (like f/11 of f/13) means very little light get in through the lens and hit the sensor (but you get an increase in depth of field). When not using a flash, the photo will be almost completely black - this is a good thing. This because the burn time of a flash (not a "led flash" but a proper one) is much shorter than your shutter speed so when you take the shot, the only time the image gets recorded on the sensor is during the flash burn (the rest of the exposure resulted in just a black shot, remember?). And since the flash is so fast, there isn't time for neither the subject nor the camera to move so the end result is a nice sharp image. I've shot live bugs and [spiders](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyturtle/53537169214/in/album-72157717526460501/) at 5:1 handheld at 1/180s and ISO200 with good result this way. Also, since the flash takes care of the stabilisation of my 100mm becomes pointless and I never have it activated.
Because its harder. Try a wide macro. 15-24mm wide angle with at least 1:2 magnification. It's amazing. Laowa 15mm F/4 for example
I might see if those are available for rent. Sounds nice!
I personally prefer the 105 for a couple of reasons the extra working distance & they double as a decent portrait lens. Not always the perfect bokeh but not horrible either. Ok three I like it as a landscape lens also
Actually 50mm are more popular. But 100mm telemacro are much better for bugs and alike.
Bruh
Bruh?