[NatureHike]

I've used a 100mm vivitar macro lens and the D FA 50 quite a bit, and previously had one of the Sigma 50s. The ability to get the end of the lens in really close can come in handy for tight spaces when combined with live view. Stuff like bugs inside of bushes. I'm not sure if the sigma 90mm is heavy, but the D FA 50mm macro is super light. It also has quick shift, which is pretty handy. I used the D FA 50 in the single in challenge last month, and got very few shots of wasps and butterflies, but everything else seemed pretty doable. It's definitely a different kind of experience if you like to shoot bugs at 1:1.

[pres589]

I think I'd go with the DA 35 Ltd as it's going to be more versatile on a crop sensor and it seems like a great lens. On a crop sensor 50 and 90 isn't as extremely different as 35 to 90 would be. The 35 will offer you more view of the background which might be useful for "macro portraits" if that term makes sense.

[kypfer]

I like my Tamron, it is a good lens but I wonder if there would be any value to me adding another macro lens of a shorter focal length.
I also have a reverse lens setup for extreme macro.
I do already have 35 and 50mm lenses but not in the macro category.
Are there things I could do with a 35 or 50 that would be better or easier than with the 90mm?
Thanks.

I too have the Tamron 90mm (Adaptall-2 m/f, not the later a/f version) and find it adequate for a majority of my close-up work.
I do have a 50mm close-focus, but mostly I end up just having to get too close to the subject to be useful … working in my own shadow, disturbing the subject etc.
I usually prefer to use extension tube(s) (or even a 2x converter) on the Tamron.
I'll agree with the above postings, the "kit" 18-55mm does have surprisingly capable close-focus capability
I do prefer the perspective allowed by the longer lens, but sometimes needs must

[UncleVanya]

I enjoy workimg with both the Tamron 90mm and the 50mm Macro Limited. The 50mm gives you a little more depth of field, but since you have to move in so close it's sometimes harder to keep the shadow of the camera and your hand out of the frame when working in bright sun.

I thought I had read that Depth of field is based on magnification at macro distances and not focal length. My own experience is that only at less magnified “close focus” distances do you see much difference (if any) in actual depth of field. Obviously once you move back to typical non-macro distances then the focal length impact to depth of field start becoming apparent.

[simon_199]

I thought I had read that Depth of field is based on magnification at macro distances and not focal length. My own experience is that only at less magnified “close focus” distances do you see much difference (if any) in actual depth of field. Obviously once you move back to typical non-macro distances then the focal length impact to depth of field start becoming apparent.

Exactly, depth of field depends only on optical magnification and not on focal length*.

I have the three Pentax macros 35 Ltd, 50 DFA and 100 DFA. To complement a 90 macro I'd suggest the 35. As many pointed out the 90-100 range is best for bugs for many reasons. The shorter focal length is useful for general purpose usage and "close-up" at lower magnification up to 1:2 and it is very versatile.



*I think I have read that most of the formulas you find to support that statement are approximate and, strictly speaking, there is some second-order effect that introduces some dependence of DoF from the focal length at the same magnification. But it is normally negligible.

[pacerr]

The main difference besides working distance is perspective. The background using the different focal lengths will be quite different.

'Perspective and background: those are excellent points that are often overlooked in discussions of focal length.

These images aren't at 'macro' distance but illustrate the difference FL makes. The blossom is the same size but taken from different lens to subject distance. The perspective tells a completely different story by either isolating a single object or establishing a completely new narrative by including the surrounding background.

The included background may also affect the overall exposure or require different lighting provisions.

Most macro/close-up images are very 'subject oriented so panoramic backgrounds are not common; the narrower FOV is often preferred.

Perspective and vanishing points do make a difference. It would be awkward to attempt to assign the same 'title' to both images.

[jacamar]

Exactly, depth of field depends only on optical magnification and not on focal length*.

The above images from pacerr certainly show a shallower depth of field for the 300mm lens than for the 16mm lens with the main subject roughly the same size. That's what I was referring to.

[simon_199]

The above images from pacerr certainly show a shallower depth of field for the 300mm lens than for the 16mm lens with the main subject roughly the same size. That's what I was referring to.

But that's not gonna happen between a 35mm and a 100mm at magnifications in the range between 1:2 and 1:1 or beyond (true "macro" territory). There are may formulas and calculators that are valid in that regime and yes they do ask you the focal length but actually it's used to compute magnification. The calculated DoF of the 35mm at 1:1 (140mm distance) and of the 100mm at 1:1 (300mm distance) is the same. And it's pretty reliable in practice the dof is indeed very similar, at high magnification.

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-macro

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I define a macro lens as one capable of 1:1 on a full frame sensor

You may define as much as you like... Only, it does not help.

[aslyfox]

You may define as much as you like... Only, it does not help.

not sure what, if anything, I did to offend

[UncleVanya]

not sure what, if anything, I did to offend

Scratching my head also.

[richard0170]

In answer to the OP's question. Yes, both a 35mm and 50mm will add something to your photography. Will it be enough to justify the expense I am not so sure.
The 35mm Ltd is a cracking lens and as a general purpose lens it is exceedingly versatile. It's not so great for macro due to the awkward camera to subject distance required, but if you are out and about with just this lens you can get the job done on static subjects. On APSC this would be my preferred lens for still life and flower shots, close range but not macro stuff. If you already have a different 28 or 35mm, cracking lens though it is, it does not bring so much to your photography and ownership is only justified by the joy it brings in just having it and there is nothing wrong with that!
If you own both a 35 and 90mm macro, it is harder to justify a 50mm. However, on APSC I particularly like the FOV it provides and I find it better than either the longer and shorter focal lengths for things like funghi. Not only that but there are some real bargains to be had if you go for manual focus. I have the A, F and K 50mm Macro lenses and all are excellent. The M has a similar reputation.
As an aside, I have several macro lenses in the range 50-100mm. What I would really like though is one of 200mm (or longer!) which did not cost an arm and a leg, as all the butterflies I try and capture round where I live are exceptionally nervous creatures and getting close to them is very problematic even with a 100mm. I am very jealous of Pepperbury's tame dragonflies and butterflies:-).

[Rondec]

I guess I would say that if you enjoy close up photography and could get by with a focal length in the 35mm range, then the DA 35 might be a good choice. It is sort of an all-arounder, capable of landscape and macro. I like the DA 40 limited, but I do miss the ability to focus closely when I am walking around with it. I don't know that the 50 macro would offer anything that would be appealing over a 90mm macro for me -- at least not on APS-C.

[Kingman]

90 or 100mm or higher (150mm) is great for keeping your distance from bugs and butterflies. I started with a 50mm macro and move to the 100mm and have not gone back. In fact the 100mm macro is my "normal" lens that lives on my K-1. It seems my eye prefers the 100 mm FOV on a full frame rig. I also like the 77mm Limited on the K-3 for street photography. I am looking at acquiring the 150mm IRIX to have even more "stand off" distance from bugs and the such. The only issue might be the added weight with the K-1. Manual focus for most macro is optimal for me to precisely focus where I want to be. 1:1 is fine with the longer focal lengths. There are some newer Laowa 50mm macros that will perform 2:1 magnifications, but this would be more challenging (not impossible) at the closer shooting distances.

[NatureHike]

the butterflies I try and capture round where I live are exceptionally nervous creatures and getting close to them is very problematic even with a 100mm.

I have the same problem with butterflies. I've found that I get way more shots of butterflies with a 200 or 300mm zoom that can do 1:4 or better magnification.