With the camera put on hold I want to get a Macro Lens. I was thinking of the Tamron 90 Macro. I know there have been a few new Macros out anybody have any suggestions?
they still need 24p to get into the indie film videographer pipeline....they are laughing at the a55
Frank, I don't think there's a huge choice in new macro lenses.
I grabbed this list from Dyxum.
I don't think any of them are bad, just depends on budget and working distance.
The Tamron 90 is a good choice although I'd prefer the Sony which is identical, optically anyway, to the Minolta - AF 100 F2.8 Macro D, a great lens.
Gear to go...
Frank, if you or anyone is interested, feel free to check my gear list for specifics. I have several lenses that I am willing to part with. Just let me know if you are ready to go with something.
This new 120-300mm f/2.8 is going to be a real shot to the wallet, unlike anything else photographic I have ever purchased. Maybe we can help one another out.
- BFA, Digital Photography
A Photographer Is Forever
Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.
you want macro look up zeiss luminar 63mm
Originally Posted by Peekayoh
HeHe, I don't think Frank is quite ready yet for this......
Nice one Steve.
All in good fun Frank, no offense.
Seriously though Frank, Steve has a point about a second hand lens.
That is, what are you going to be doing with your purchase (yeh I know, Macro) but what exactly?
I mean to say, a Macro is a single purpose lens and not all that cheap.
Yes, a Macro will double as a Portrait lens but the 90mm (135mm equivalent) is too long in my view.
A 50mmm (75mm equivalent) or 60mm (90mm equiv) is better IMO.
But then, you have the 50mm f/1.7 and also the excellent (I'm assuming that you have the f/4 version) 35-70mm (42-105mm equiv) lens which are both to be preferred for Portraits.
So, if it's a Macro only lens, you could quite easily choose an older Manual Focus lens to start with for not much money or you could go with any old MF lens with an extension tube. Oh! and you need an adapter as well.
At Macro distances the AF is pretty useless and you'll probably end up using MF anyway.
I nipped out in the Garden and took these two pics. Nothing exiting but the Roses are budding again.
It was a bit dim so I upped the iso to 1600.
I cropped the image to the match pixels of your A100.
50mm Macro at f/8, 1/100sec and about 3" working distance.
135mm MD with short extension tube. f/8, 1/25th sec and about 20" working distance.
I should have used a longer tube to get more magnification.
OK, I used a longer extension tube on the 135mm to give a working distance of about 14" and similar magnification to the 50mm Macro lens.
Again I cropped it to the dimensions of the A100 and then again to square.
50mm Macro @ f/8
135mm lens @ f/8 with longer extension tube (from 100mm Macro).
You can see that the Minolta 135mm MD is doing a pretty good job.
Ok, not quite as sharp and the focus plain won't be as flat as the Macro, but not at all bad.
Remember, you can pick up similar lenses for a song and it doesn't have to be Minolta.
There are plenty of M42 lenses about you could try.
Just need a cheap adapter and an extension tube.
Of course the DOF is very limited at these magnifications so it's pretty tricky to get the shot you want.
On a tripod and rail you can stack a number of images to get the effect of more DOF.
Obviously, you can do the same with the Tamron 90mm but at a somewhat higher price.
Also, there's more messing about with adapter and tube and the exposure needs more care (usually -1EV with my 900).
But there is satisfaction to be had from getting good results without spending a fortune (LOL, this from a bloke with some excruciatingly expensive glass).
I think I might look for a reversing ring for my 50mm and drill a hole in the back cap to keep the aperture open.
Thanks for all the sample images and help