Macro different mm

When do you prefer Macro 105 mm, when 50mm etc.
On what basis do you decide what lense to use/buy.

105 is good for portrait too ? isnt it?

Plusses and minuses for different mm ?

PS. Somehow in this forum I have noticed Sigma AF 105mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
to be good (= Pentax = Tammy 100mm)
I have seen that the same mm lenses are compared here, but how to choose between different mm ?

Don't know if this helps. link

Oh yes, absolutely stunning for portraits. I have a few done and you can see the epithelial tissues from the skin , Just joking Aiki, what I mean is it really is nice depending who you are photographing. I love it for kids. I have the 50mm prime too but sometimes I prefer the 100mm macro, depends on occasion.

But please do not take my word for it only, I am sure the more experienced members in the forum will give you a more knowledgeable feedback

[quote:3496ace15f="aminstar
I have the 50mm prime too but sometimes I prefer the 100mm macro, depends on occasion.

[/quote] Yes, Amin. Sometimes one and sometimes another. That is exactly what I am asking.

WHY ??? On what cases you take one and when another. Reason ???

Thanks, Barrie. Will look after some time...now in hurry....

A few reasons Aiki.

Distance from the subject one of the reasons.
Its very difficult for me to use the 50mm on kids because they never sit still. Having said that when I use it specially indoors without flash light the ones that come good are really great.

I rarely use the 100mm Macro on grown ups, only rarely, unless the person has visibly very soothing skin or I am prepared to do some smoothening during post processing. I just like the 1:1 magnification of the 100mm Macro, so I have used it often for portraits. On the kids its just so stunningly nice, but again you might argue that I am addicted to the 100mm Macro so I am biased.

With regard to 50mm Macro(if that's what you meant) and 100mm macro it just has to do with subject also. I doubt you would be able to photograph insects with the 50mm, that's where the longer range comes handy. And also the reason why I am in the market for a 180mm Macro

100mm is a good, tight, portrait length on digital. But I wouldn't buy a macro lens to use as a portrait lens. A lens designed for portraits will be kinder to skin, and in that regard, nothing beats the 77mm.

For insects, 100mm is better than 50mm (and 200mm better still) because you can get slightly further away. This is especially useful for scorpions and Black Widow spiders.

G

Yes, I agree fully. Not owning the 77mm but just the 50mm I do feel that it falls a bit short and I do struggle to compensate that distance.

And yup, the part about being kinder to skin is absolutely spot on. Macro does strange things to the skin when using as a portrait lens . I almost got whacked on the head by trying to show someone images that I had taken of hers with the 100mm Macro, and from that day onwards swore never to attempt to use a Macro lens again on a lady . Ended up locked up in the shed with cold sandwiches for the whole day and puffing smoke and bubbles

The biggest difference, for macro work, is the distance from lens-to-subject to achieve 1:1.
A 35mm macro isn't going to help if you want to take macro images of shy and timid insects! You'll probably want at least 100mm, if not longer.

Also, because of the angle of view, having a wide angle macro shot will lead to a different "look" compared to a telephoto macro.


As for portraiture - the 100mm Pentax macro lens is great. In fact, it's too good! "Brutally sharp" as one pro defined it Now having the SMC-DA*50-135 I use that for portraiture. The zoom range makes it more flexible, and the sharpness is comparable. It's certainly one lens that always goes with me...

...unfortunately for my SMC-F 100/2.8 that rarely sees action In fact, I'm agonising over selling it on to a home where it can work for its keep

There are, of course, several other ways of getting macro (and super-macro) performance. Perhaps if you let us know what you primarily want to accomplish and we can suggest all the options that make sense
(Some options are really very, very cheap indeed too!)

Matt

I really like my Sigma EX DG 70mm macro lens, for insects it's not the most suitable lens as it needs to be close to the subject, for inanimate objects and plants it's great. I also use it for portraits and all sorts of other subjects as seen in some of my photos posted on this forum. I some times put this lens on my K10 when I go walking just to see if I can use it in other ways.

I have the 35mm f2.8 DA macro (which is now horrendously expensive).

It works as a good standard lens and is nice to use plus it has the versatility of a true 1-1 macro. And it's quite compact, too.

The downside is that for insects and things, a longer focal length would be better. On the other hand, as I said, this functions as a good GP lens as well which the 100mm wouldn't.

Thanks for answering

My problem is, that I am entering into a new field for me.
I still do not know, what interesting fav I may find with a new lense.
Until now I have not been a bug fan. Although I have got some bees or butterflies etc.
I am more interested in details, structures, textures.... hard to tell.

I have no intention to take portraits with the macro - this is not an aim !!! I have understood, that it is SHARP!. Amin, I have read some of your previous posts as well
But I have found some places where the lense is described so : "ALSO a good portrait lense".
Until now my sigma works for portraits quite well. (I have never done any studio work. I am using natural light. )

At the moment I have got Sigma 70-300 Apo DG that has also a macro function. But it is 1:2 (so not the best), and the min distance is 95 cm.

Thanks, Barrie, for the link. The DOF was a question for me as well.
Still I somehow cant believe that there is no difference with 50 or 100mm lenses in DOF. As there IS a difference with not macro lenses.
This is sth that my brains do not reach. (They do not reach several things )

Matt, thanks for your comment.
Maybe I really shouldnt buy a macro lense at all?! Uhhh.
But this great sharpness is attracting me ! Sigma is soft. In many cases I love it. But not always. Especially, when I want to get a detail !

I start to think, that maybe having already the 1:2 macro Sigma (300mm) function
a 50 mm macro would be more interestng for me.
Are these (50 mm macro Pentax, Sigma) as equal as the 100mm sigma and Pentax macros??? Or there is more of quality difference?

What might be a difference in the NOT MACRO pics, when I take the same place with 50 macro lense and my Pentax 16-50 DA* ????
When I do not want to switch between the lenses every 5 min....


I hate when I cant TRY the lenses before I decide
There are no such lenses in my local shop. I have to order ...

Yep, there is a great mess in my head at the moment. You are free to make this mess even greater As every bit of information (showing the possibilities) may bring me to "heureka!" at last.

I bought the Sigma 50mm lens for copystand work. A longer lens would have required a bigger copystand and a stepladder. Having bought the lens I have got into taking photos of wild flowers. For that I would prefer a 100mm (or even 200mm) lens as it would require marginally less grovelling on the ground and would be easier to light (at 1:1 the front element of the 50mm is very close to the subject). I tried my SMC Takumar 55 on some bellows with an adapter and was amazed at the results. Although less convenient, extension tubes, second hand bellows and reversing rings offer more affordable alternatives.

For general work in the 50-100mm range I used the DA* 50-135mm, or did until it broke.

I don't really 'do' portraits although I am looking forward to trying out a Jupiter 9 85mm lens for that purpose. If I win the pools I shall get a 77mm ltd. Just had a thought... the Jupiter 9 on my bellows might be a useful combo.... hmmmmmm

Just my tuppence worth. Kris.

I'll trot out my stock reply to a question like this. I was advised the Vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro was good and cheap costing em £40. I felt that was a sensible amount to see how useful a macro lens would be. It doesn't do 1:1 unless you get the additional lens which I didn't but I have never really worried about that.

It's manual focus but that's no hardship and it's plastic construction but it has the great merit of being cheap and good quality.

Mike

Distance from the object seemes to be a subject.
How far you have to be from the object to get the 1:1 macro ????
35mm
50mm
100mm

Don't know about the 35mm
Sigma 50mm min focus distance is 0.188m
Sigma 105mm " " " " 0.313m