Best Macro lens for the money

A.M.92 · 07-25-2010, 06:06 AM

Okay, so i have some money, and i need advice on which macro i should go for, i tend to shoot flowers and some insects, i have these choices, now i want to know which one would be best for the money. Budget max 600.

Tamron af 90mm f/2.8 macr,o I like the price , and just kind of wondering is it really good IQ lens?

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro, Good overall construction but i am not too sure about all the mixed reviews

Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, Good for portraits, maybe too short, idk.

Pentax 50mm f/2.8 macro One of best overall but too short

Pentax d fa 100mm f/2.8 macro The one i would buy but not sure if i should just get the wr

Pentax d fa 100mm wr f/2.8 macro The price i dont know if i can justify the WR, for it

Do you guys think the Pentax wr version is worth the extra money, or is the non version good enough. Please help me decide which to get, i know it is my choice but i need your opinions and skill. Thank You.

dogbear1980 · 07-25-2010, 06:46 AM

i'm not sure the other lens but I owned a DFA100mm WR and I can tell you it's amazing.
I use it mostly for tele photo purpose and it takes at lot sharp and confident photos for me,
not to mention the superb built. I foresee the price will go up in near future.

imtheguy · 07-25-2010, 07:19 AM

I think you will find there is no absolute "best" without taking your needs and likes/dislikes into account. Recommend you try before you buy; either rent, borrow, or buy from reputable dealer that gives you full refund if you want to get a different one after a week. My experience, I did all the research and bought one from your list based on best specs and reviews. After 10 days I returned it because it just did not feel good to use. The second brand I tried has been great and I knew it from the moment I took the first shot.

stover98074 · 07-25-2010, 08:13 AM

I enjoy flower macro photography and was able to get several focal length lenses for the price of one modern macro lens. I use enlarging lenses on a bellows (old Asahi Pentax Autobellows) - although you could use tubes as well.

With macro, the focusing is manual so using a manual focus lens can make sense.

The reason I like multiple focal lengths is that they provide different working distances and different abilities for magnification. In general, the shorter the focal length the less working distance and the greater the magnification. A lot of the flower shots I take are with a 105 or 135mm enlarging lens.

If you are interested, here is an article on manual focus macro lenses and enlarging lenses.

Inexpensive Macro Photography

RioRico · 07-25-2010, 08:22 AM

As in any situation, the best lens is the one you use, and the worst is the one you don't use. If you want a rugged multipurpose AF macro-tele-portrait lens, the DFA 100 WR is hard to beat. I don't need AF much, and I'm not crawling in mud and slime, so my US$3 manual Vivitar 90/2.8 macro suits me fine -- and I use it. For near-macro capability, a Raynox DCR-150 or -250 on a 35-135 or 50-150 or 70-200 zoom will do wonders.

But you should buy a new Pentax macro, to keep the managers and stockholders at Hoya happy.

**Ahab** · 07-25-2010, 08:37 AM

The 1st on your list Is the best bang for the buck and will stand up to any of the others of similar focal lenght. Do a search here and see for yourself.

yeatzee · 07-25-2010, 08:50 AM

Lets get this much straight....

*ALL* have top notch IQ.

Carry on

**rparmar** · 07-25-2010, 09:21 AM

For really cheap you can also try the Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro, also branded as Vivitar, Phoenix, Exakta, Voigtlander and Promaster Spectrum 7. Plastic build but very good image quality. Goes to 1:2 and included screw-on filter takes it to 1:1.

As others have said, any of these lenses will work. Macro is a lot more about your technique, lighting etc. than it is about the optics.

Pentaxor · 07-25-2010, 10:36 AM

in the list, I vouch for the Sigma 70 personally. the lens is just astounding.

whojammyflip · 07-26-2010, 12:38 AM

Why not buy several, test them out, and only keep the best? The difficult part is selling them off and not paying too much for them. If you keep an eye out, you can pick them up cheap, there is a lot of variance in prices on evilbay.

I went through a macro lens dilema recently, and nearly bought a Tamron f2.5 90mm (first version). It sounds like this lens also doubles as a nice portrait lens, and is more economical as there are loads available. In the end I opted for a 50mm M, which I am pleased with and a M 85mm f2. The fast aperture on a macro lens is only really useful for focusing, as you will probably need to shoot around f16. The difference between f2 and f4 at macro distances is negligible, the depth of field for both is very shallow.

Handheld macros lose resolution, even if you are shooting faster than 1/250. So photomacrography requires a tripod at least, and I think a macro rail would be desirable.

Have a look at this (old, but the arithmetic still applies) discussion of resolution and camera movement:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000612135202/http://members.aol.com/daveswager/resolut.htm

yeatzee · 07-26-2010, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by hoojammyflip

Handheld macros lose resolution, even if you are shooting faster than 1/250. So photomacrography requires a tripod at least, and I think a macro rail would be desirable.

Have a look at this (old, but the arithmetic still applies) discussion of resolution and camera movement:
Photographic Resolution

As always, I beg to differ with this statement. If im not a living contridiction or heck Rense either, than I don't know what is :ugh:

(oh and for the record, EVERY macro photographer I follow on flickr including Lord V, XBN83, Thomas Shahan shoot handheld.)

**Aristophanes** · 07-26-2010, 12:18 PM

Tamron 90. For the $$$. It can AF in a pinch, has a good limiter, doubles as a long portrait at 2.8, is lightweight, and is as sharp and colour rendering as any macro.

I will second the motion that *all* macros has superior resolution. Pretty much none are bad. Choose your budget, your focal length, and go.

Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary.

Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually.

Pentaxor · 07-26-2010, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Tamron 90. For the $$$. It can AF in a pinch, has a good limiter, doubles as a long portrait at 2.8, is lightweight, and is as sharp and colour rendering as any macro.

I will second the motion that *all* macros has superior resolution. Pretty much none are bad. Choose your budget, your focal length, and go.

Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary.

Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually.

or just shoot under very strong lighting.

yeatzee · 07-26-2010, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary.

Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually.

This is only true when shooting above 1:1....maybe even 2:1 IMO

ll_coffee_lP · 07-26-2010, 02:34 PM

I've heard wonderful things about all the lenses on your list. I personally own the Sigma 70 and couldn't be happier with it, but it doubles as a people lens and ebay item lens for me. I'm sure you would be happy with any of those choices.

c[_]

07-25-2010, 06:06 AM	#1
A.M.92 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: TX Posts: 68	Best Macro lens for the money Okay, so i have some money, and i need advice on which macro i should go for, i tend to shoot flowers and some insects, i have these choices, now i want to know which one would be best for the money. Budget max 600. Tamron af 90mm f/2.8 macr,o I like the price , and just kind of wondering is it really good IQ lens? Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro, Good overall construction but i am not too sure about all the mixed reviews Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, Good for portraits, maybe too short, idk. Pentax 50mm f/2.8 macro One of best overall but too short Pentax d fa 100mm f/2.8 macro The one i would buy but not sure if i should just get the wr Pentax d fa 100mm wr f/2.8 macro The price i dont know if i can justify the WR, for it Do you guys think the Pentax wr version is worth the extra money, or is the non version good enough. Please help me decide which to get, i know it is my choice but i need your opinions and skill. Thank You.

07-25-2010, 08:13 AM	#4
stover98074 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	Multiple Focal Lengths I enjoy flower macro photography and was able to get several focal length lenses for the price of one modern macro lens. I use enlarging lenses on a bellows (old Asahi Pentax Autobellows) - although you could use tubes as well. With macro, the focusing is manual so using a manual focus lens can make sense. The reason I like multiple focal lengths is that they provide different working distances and different abilities for magnification. In general, the shorter the focal length the less working distance and the greater the magnification. A lot of the flower shots I take are with a 105 or 135mm enlarging lens. If you are interested, here is an article on manual focus macro lenses and enlarging lenses. Inexpensive Macro Photography

07-26-2010, 12:38 AM	#10
whojammyflip Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 417	Why not buy several, test them out, and only keep the best? The difficult part is selling them off and not paying too much for them. If you keep an eye out, you can pick them up cheap, there is a lot of variance in prices on evilbay. I went through a macro lens dilema recently, and nearly bought a Tamron f2.5 90mm (first version). It sounds like this lens also doubles as a nice portrait lens, and is more economical as there are loads available. In the end I opted for a 50mm M, which I am pleased with and a M 85mm f2. The fast aperture on a macro lens is only really useful for focusing, as you will probably need to shoot around f16. The difference between f2 and f4 at macro distances is negligible, the depth of field for both is very shallow. Handheld macros lose resolution, even if you are shooting faster than 1/250. So photomacrography requires a tripod at least, and I think a macro rail would be desirable. Have a look at this (old, but the arithmetic still applies) discussion of resolution and camera movement: http://web.archive.org/web/20000612135202/http://members.aol.com/daveswager/resolut.htm Last edited by whojammyflip; 07-26-2010 at 12:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens money to spend	steve917	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-10-2009 08:23 PM
No Money, Super Macro ;-p	X Man	Post Your Photos!	3	04-14-2009 06:19 PM
Help me spend money: on a lens	liberiabound	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-18-2009 02:20 PM
A nice value for money macro lens for K10D	edumad	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	05-06-2008 02:47 PM
The Best Autofocus Lens Money Can Buy	carpents	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	06-19-2007 02:44 PM

07-25-2010, 06:46 AM	#2
dogbear1980 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 20	i'm not sure the other lens but I owned a DFA100mm WR and I can tell you it's amazing. I use it mostly for tele photo purpose and it takes at lot sharp and confident photos for me, not to mention the superb built. I foresee the price will go up in near future.

07-25-2010, 07:19 AM	#3
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I think you will find there is no absolute "best" without taking your needs and likes/dislikes into account. Recommend you try before you buy; either rent, borrow, or buy from reputable dealer that gives you full refund if you want to get a different one after a week. My experience, I did all the research and bought one from your list based on best specs and reviews. After 10 days I returned it because it just did not feel good to use. The second brand I tried has been great and I knew it from the moment I took the first shot.

07-25-2010, 08:22 AM	#5
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	As in any situation, the best lens is the one you use, and the worst is the one you don't use. If you want a rugged multipurpose AF macro-tele-portrait lens, the DFA 100 WR is hard to beat. I don't need AF much, and I'm not crawling in mud and slime, so my US$3 manual Vivitar 90/2.8 macro suits me fine -- and I use it. For near-macro capability, a Raynox DCR-150 or -250 on a 35-135 or 50-150 or 70-200 zoom will do wonders. But you should buy a new Pentax macro, to keep the managers and stockholders at Hoya happy.

07-25-2010, 08:37 AM	#6
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	The 1st on your list Is the best bang for the buck and will stand up to any of the others of similar focal lenght. Do a search here and see for yourself.

07-25-2010, 08:50 AM	#7
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Lets get this much straight.... *ALL* have top notch IQ. Carry on

07-25-2010, 09:21 AM	#8
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	For really cheap you can also try the Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro, also branded as Vivitar, Phoenix, Exakta, Voigtlander and Promaster Spectrum 7. Plastic build but very good image quality. Goes to 1:2 and included screw-on filter takes it to 1:1. As others have said, any of these lenses will work. Macro is a lot more about your technique, lighting etc. than it is about the optics.

07-25-2010, 10:36 AM	#9
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	in the list, I vouch for the Sigma 70 personally. the lens is just astounding.

07-26-2010, 12:09 PM	#11
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by hoojammyflip Handheld macros lose resolution, even if you are shooting faster than 1/250. So photomacrography requires a tripod at least, and I think a macro rail would be desirable. Have a look at this (old, but the arithmetic still applies) discussion of resolution and camera movement: Photographic Resolution As always, I beg to differ with this statement. If im not a living contridiction or heck Rense either, than I don't know what is :ugh: (oh and for the record, EVERY macro photographer I follow on flickr including Lord V, XBN83, Thomas Shahan shoot handheld.)

07-26-2010, 12:18 PM	#12
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Tamron 90. For the $$$. It can AF in a pinch, has a good limiter, doubles as a long portrait at 2.8, is lightweight, and is as sharp and colour rendering as any macro. I will second the motion that all macros has superior resolution. Pretty much none are bad. Choose your budget, your focal length, and go. Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary. Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually.

07-26-2010, 02:06 PM	#13
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Aristophanes Tamron 90. For the $$$. It can AF in a pinch, has a good limiter, doubles as a long portrait at 2.8, is lightweight, and is as sharp and colour rendering as any macro. I will second the motion that all macros has superior resolution. Pretty much none are bad. Choose your budget, your focal length, and go. Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary. Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually. or just shoot under very strong lighting.

07-26-2010, 02:28 PM	#14
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Aristophanes Handheld macro shooting is a combination of macro high-speed flash photography. A dedicated flash system is absolutely necessary. Macro w/o flash is usually relegated to a tripod, preferably with a rail. Not always, but usually. This is only true when shooting above 1:1....maybe even 2:1 IMO

07-26-2010, 02:34 PM	#15
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	I've heard wonderful things about all the lenses on your list. I personally own the Sigma 70 and couldn't be happier with it, but it doubles as a people lens and ebay item lens for me. I'm sure you would be happy with any of those choices. c[_]