Views on Telephoto Macro?

[Birma]

I am looking for a macro lens in the range 90mm + for general outdoor close-up work (e.g. flowers and bugs) and the occasional use as a standard telephoto lens. For the majority of the time the lens will be on a tripod and manually focused, but for those times when it is not, a nippy focus ability and stabilisation could be nice bonuses. Initially the lens will be used on APS-C cropped sensors, but may be required on FF in the near future ( ). I really want good sharpness and creamy bokeh, but I guess this pretty much defines all macros .

The three candidates I have identified so far are:-
1. Sony 100mm f/2.8 (around the £549-599 price)
2. Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM (around the £500 -549 price)
3. Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di Macro USD (around £629, it's new out)

The Sony seems ok but doesn't have any bells and whistles (e.g. OS or SSM etc.).

The Sigma seems well reviewed and would appear to have lens stabilisation which would be nice when used with NEX or as an alternative to Sony IBIS. weather sealed as well I think. My favourite at the moment.

The new Tamron has USD and past incarnations of this lens are well reviewed just about everywhere.

I would really value the thoughts and suggestions of the community here.

[Dr. Harout]

How about this? http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/150mm ... po-macro-2

[mvanrheenen]

I have the non-USD version of the Tamron.

Yes, it's sharp and can produce good contrast, however it's prone to purple fringing wide open and the AF/MF switch is a pain. Don't know if they improved those areas in the new model. AF is slow on mine, but I'm sure the USD motor is a big improvement.

I tried it on the NEX3 I had with the EA1 adapter, but was unable to control the aperture, even after the last update of the camera and adapter.

I would check these things before buying one.

Good luck.

Mark

[Birma]

Hi Doc. Thanks for the link. You've made the choice even more difficult now . The Sigma 150 seems like a really nice lens.

Good points Mark. Good tip for the Tamron, and I hadn't thought about compatability on the Nex adapters. I think I will cross off the Tamron and check out the Sigma compatibility.

[MickH]

I own the Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro and it's a fine lens. I only use it on Minolta/Sony bodies and they have in body stabilization as you obviously know. I would highly recommend it. I'll post an example from it when I have a little more time.

Now - making life even more difficult - I also own the Minolta 200mm f4 macro. It's no longer made and secondhand it seems to be going for well over double its original price (£1000 original price in the UK). BUT BUT BUT - it's a lens that I wouldn't part with for anything. It's as sharp as a razor, wonderful bokeh and gives that all important working distance between me and the subject. IMHO it's the best lens I've ever owned. If I lost or broke mine I'd move heaven and earth to replace it. You can see an example from it in the insect thread.

I have no experience of the other lenses but I do have friends who use the 90mm Tamron and they are very happy.

I have no idea of how keen you are or what your budget is so the above might be irrelevant. If so then sorry.

MickH

[MickH]

Here's the example from the Minolta 100mm macro that I mentioned.

MickH

[Birma]

Hi Mick. Thanks very much for the insight and guidance. You make a good case for the Minolta 200 . I'd be nervous of spending that much on a second hand lens. I like your bee pic with the Minolta 100. I had always assumed I'd get the Minolta or Sony 100 one day, but I've read so many positive reviews of the Sigma 105 and now the 150 since the Doc suggested it I'm still favouring this direction.

[bfitzgerald]

IMO on this it really comes down to if you are ok with a non stabilised lens on a NEX. If you don't then the 90/100mm macros are worth a look (but the Sony 100mm is at it's highest price for some time now)

This is one reason I've not had a lot of interest in NEX, no IBIS.

[Birma]

Thanks for your input Barry. A lot of my macro work is on a tripod, but not all of it, so stabilisation is certainly a factor.

[bfitzgerald]

With the macro's I've used basically the AS is useful mostly when I'm not doing macro work ie using the 90mm for portraits or indoors in low light, then the IS is useful no questions about it.

For actual macro work obviously it's not so useful even the VR Nikkor I tried struggled to help much for real close up shots hand held. So I suspect the choice comes down to what you are using it for "most of the time" With the new Tamron 90mm v the old I can't say I'd find the price premium worth it for essentially the same/simlar optical performance (maybe if the price comes down in the future)

Tricky choice I have not used the new Sigma so don't know how that stacks up, but I've yet to use a macro lens across makers that wasn't "good". I would certainly pick the old Tamron 90mm over the Sony because I don't think the price difference is worth it, both are very good optically it's just the price is at it's highest level for some time and for an older design lens I think it's overpriced being blunt.

[Birma]

More useful thoughts Barry, thanks.

I have been looking at sample pictures with the different lens discussed on Flickr and Dyxum. I wanted to see what difference there was in the field of view for 100 and 150, on APS-C and Full-frame. Of course this is not very scientific as it might only show me what people might think they should post on forums for such lenses .

This has started me wondering whether I need 1:1 macro ability for most of my pictures at all. For flowers I often like a bit of context and the ability to get smooth bokeh. For butterflies etc. it is more a case of a true telephoto to catch the little blighters .

I started to look at other telephoto primes and then I bumped into the 135 STF. I hadn't realised that Sony were still making this lens. Looking at the sample pictures this seems to do exactly what I want for flowers. Of course, it is big bucks, and I may still need a proper macro as well!

I'm still pondering this. Further thoughts welcome.

[Dr. Harout]

Birma, I'm longing for the STF too. That's not a lens lust, it's more of a bokeh lust.
No AF, but hey, who cares after having focus peeking. It's a wonder...

[mvanrheenen]

Oh yes, that STF is a pretty sweet albeit a specialized lens. MFD and magnification seems great for bigger flowers, although not so much for smaller ones. Tough choice, good luck with it.

[Birma]

Thanks guys. The sensible thing would probably be to try and rent it to try it out first. Need to wait for spring to start again here - it has sadly returned to winter rain this week

[Birma]

Well, I went for the Tamron in the end. From all of the reviews and examples I could find online there was nothing to chose between the three optically. The Tamron was cheapest and had the added advantage of being able to use the AF-D points on the A99. It was tempting to go for something a bit longer, but I wanted to save a few pennies on this to help save up for the 135 STF