macro lens

[mikepage]

Hi All,

i'm having some real trouble deciding on a new lens that is good at macro. having browsed some decent shots on the Gallery here, lots of people seem to be using the Sigma 150mm macro - let me stop you now, as much as i'd love this lens it's way out of budget...plus I have a Sony A330 body so not possible (as far as i'm aware?).
I'm trying to get into photography of lepidoptera (and other insects too). These are the lenses in budget that i'm considering...

1. Sony SAL-30M28 Macro (around £160)
(SAL-30M28 (SAL30M28) : Cameras & camcorders : Sony)

with this one, i'm wondering why it's so cheap. It is because it is a 30mm lens, meaning i'm going to have to get up very close to the subject? Also, as far as I can tell, this is a relatively new lens and there aren't that many in depth reviews out there...anyone already have one or used one??


2. Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (£250-£300)
(Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd)

as far as price is concerned, this appears to be the sigma equivalent of the sony one above. doesn't have many of the sigma abbreviations (features), but not sure if this is important.


3. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG (around £200)
(Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd)

not a true macro, only giving 1:2 magnification, and only giving macro at 200-300mm. a more versatile lens, but is it going to do a few things okay rather than one thing really well?! is the macro 1:2 going to hold me back compared to the 1:1 on the other two lenses? saw somewhere that butterflies are too big a subject for a 1:1 lens, not sure I believe that!!


Any help gratefully received! A bit of a novice to DSLR photography and there are loads of lenses to choose from. If there's another lens that i've omitted that could be a good option, then feel free to mention it.

Cheers,

Mike

[MartynA]

Of those three options I'd definitely go for the 70-300mm

With my Pentax K10D I mainly use a sigma 70mm macro, but for butterflies it's not always possible to get as close as you would like - it would definitely be a problem with a 30mm - so I always find the best lens to be the 70-300 Tamron that I have which has a macro facility for 180-300mm

The tamron is by far the cheapest lens I have and is useless for birds etc. as the amount of purple fringing is unacceptable. However, this isn't a problem with butterflies and I'm always pleased with the shots I manage to get.

Although you'll need a reasonably small aperture (high F no) to get sufficient depth of field, using the high zoom does have the advantage of blurring the background considerably.

Martyn

[Geoff F]

I started getting serious about macro photography with the Canon 70-300 macro lens and although the macro end of the lens was around 4 ft it was fine for butterflies etc.

Then I added a 25 mm extension tube which got me down to around 3 ft which was a great improvement. Those small macro lenses are excellent for flowers etc where you can get really close but I normally consider that I am doing well if I can get closer than 2 ft from most of the really interesting insects.

And 70-300 is a good all round size for general photography.

The only extra item which I would recommend is a tripod. Some people manage with a monopod which is fine for sports work etc but in my opinion, you can't beat a tripod for clear sharp macro work.

[Words]

For insects I would definitely look to getting a true macro lens, but 300mm is way too short and if you can get that close you may cut all the light off the subject. If you really can't stretch to the Sigma 105mm (which is heavily used and excellent), then see the 70mm may well be the best option but the price difference between the 70 and 105 is not huge (about £40 difference).

[mikepage]

thanks for the advice people...so two for the 70-300mm and one for a specific macro lens...hmmmm...sadly think the 105mm and 70mm sigma lenses are too £££!

[Words]

What other lenses have you got? That may be the clincher.

[DrNickBurton]

Have you looked into older manual focus Minolta macro lenses? I wonder if you could pick one up cheap.

You'll get far better results with a true macro (you can get to 1:1 for a start).

[Ukwildlifeo]

Photoassassin has the same body as yours I believe and when we were at thursley recently he gave up trying to photograph insects with his 30mm sony lens as to get 1:1 magnification he had to pretty much touch the subject and the few times the subject stayed there he was so close he blocked out all the light.
So he ended up using his 70-300mm more. You can see his photos here:
Thursley Common 24/25 July 2010 (4th meet)

The end result was he is now looking at the tamron 90mm/sigma 105mm/sony 100(?)mm macros

[Words]

Originally Posted by Words

but 300mm is way too short and if you can get that close you may cut all the light off the subject.

I of course meant 30mm is way too short

[JB9302]

Have a look for s/h lens , I picked up a mint Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens ( Sony fit ) on Friday for £180 .

Julian