Sony Alpha A-100 MACRO Lens????

Discussion in 'Sony' started by infiniteMPG, Jun 2, 2008.

  1. infiniteMPG

    infiniteMPG Guest

    I have a Sony A-100 and bought a Tamron AF 18-250/3.5-6.3 DI II Macro
    Lens and really enjoy the system. One thing I have wanted to get into
    was taking some tight closeup macro shots (bugs, flowers, etc) and
    keep a decent depth of field without breaking the bank. Does anyone
    have a good recommended macro lens I can get to do some work like
    this?

    Thanks in advance for your assistance!
     
    infiniteMPG, Jun 2, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. In macro work: the closer you get, the shallower the DOF. Stopping down
    helps.

    If you want to get closer, while close-up lenses aren't as good as a real
    macro lens, they don't break the bank.
    I don't know if this is a good set or not.

    http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-62mm-Close-Lens-Set/dp/B00004ZCEH

    The Nikon 5T and 6T close-up lenses are probably better. I'd guess that just
    the 5T would be all you'd need for flowers, the 6T should get you even
    closer.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 2, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. infiniteMPG

    infiniteMPG Guest

    The Nikon 5T and 6T close-up lenses are probably better. I'd guess that just
    I've used macro filters in the past with my 35mm Maxxum and it worked
    well. I've tried some with different digitals and not had much luck.
    I bought one of these :

    http://www.amazon.com/Bower-62mm-Digital-Macro-Close/dp/B000NGE3NG

    but this seems to distort everything badly except what is directly in
    the middle of the shot. And the focal range is nil. It would work
    for something pretty flat but a flower or anything that has depth you
    loose it all and the background just seems to get washed out. But it
    does magnify pretty strongly :O/
     
    infiniteMPG, Jun 2, 2008
    #3
  4. infiniteMPG

    Alan Browne Guest


    I think you need a "true" macro lens such as the superb:

    Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro (There is a Sony version as well)
    Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro (pre "digital" version)

    and very good, possibly even superb:
    Sigma 180 f/3.5 (pre "digital" version)

    I don't know that the "digital" versions of the Tamron and Sigma are up
    to the pre-digital standards.

    The above lenses, notably the Tamron, are also great for portraits,
    although on the cropped sensor of a digital this usually means you need
    more room and the results are to the "flat" side.

    Minolta had (and Sony have, I believe) a 50mm macro as well... but the
    longer FLs (100 or 180) allow for more distance from the subject while
    producing a "true" macro image.

    FYI: a true macro means that the image on the sensor or film is the same
    dimension (or larger) as the subject itself. eg: an ant that is 7mm
    long will image 7mm on the senor. This would be 1:1.

    An image that is half the size on the sensor as the actual subject is
    usually accepted as macro.

    The Tamron that you have at 1:3.5 is not really a macro lens.

    Minolta also made a 1-3x macro that could get stunning results. That
    will also fit on your A100 (but the anti-shake won't work with it).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 2, 2008
    #4
  5. infiniteMPG

    frederick Guest

    AFAIK, they are possibly better, but don't not get a used old version at
    a good price because of that. I've got a pre-digital Sigma 105, which
    in theory could cause problems because of a large and concave rear
    element reflecting light from the sensor back at the sensor as a "spot"
    or area of flare/loss of contrast, but after using it for many years on
    digital bodies, I've never seem the slightest hint of a problem. (The
    later digital version has an extra coated non-concave rear element to
    solve a potential problem that seems from my experience not to exist).
    Any of the third party macro lenses are good, some exceptionally good.
    Tamron 90 / Sigma 105 / Tokina 105 etc suggested as minimum focal length
    to get good working distance for shooting (live) bugs.
    I like what I've read about the Sigma 150mm - unfortunately not yet
    available for Sony/Minolta mount.
     
    frederick, Jun 2, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.