Which Two Lenses for Macro/Telephoto?

[Ray from Santa Cruz]

I am migrating from A-mount (SLT-a77V) to E-mount (a7 IV). My former kit included Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX II, SAL16-50mm f/2.8 SSM, SAL 50mm f/2.8 Macro, and SAL 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G II. I have already decided on the FE 16-25 f/2.8 G as one of my lenses. My quandary is whether to buy :

FE 50mm f/2.8 macro and FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G

or

FE 70-200mm f/4 G II and a 1.4x TC

I would take these lenses in the rotating "fanny pack" of MindShift Rotation 180 backpack (which I already own). Regarding main uses, I would like to use the "focus stacking" feature of the a7 IV primarily for macro photography of flowers. I would also use these lenses for wildlife (including birds in flight and whales/dolphins), landscapes, and travel. (I'm attaching some of my shots taken with the SLT-a77. Bath Abbey is an HDR "vertorama"; Pink Orchid was shot using focus stacking; Blue-Eared Barbet was shot using the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.)

I'm wondering how images from a dedicated 50mm macro lens would compare to ones taken using the 70-200mm G2's macro setting. I'm also interested in how telephoto shots taken with the 70-300mm @ f/5.6 and 300mm would compare to ones taken using the 70-200mm with 1.4TC at f/5.6 and 280mm. Finally, I'd like to know whether special focusing modes ("bird eye") are better suited to one pair versus the other.

Oh, and there's that pesky $1,000 or so price difference...

I'm very excited about using my new "toy" -- thank you in advance for your advice!

 

[Unframed Dave]

Welcome, that's a lot of questions!

I'll give my slant on 1 of them. Neither of the two lenses you mention are truly macro lenses. The term has been bastardised a bit in recent years and there is a thread on the subject. They are lenses that allow very close focus with a high degree of magnification. I'm going off memory here, but I believe the 50mm is 1:2 and the 70-200mm is 1:4. There is also the 90mm which is a true macro in that it offers 1:1 magnification.

In reality, not everyone requires true macro, so thinking about your requirements and the magnification each offers is probably a useful exercise.

Then consider their other usage, the 50mm is a well loved focal length, with a variety of uses. The 90mm makes a corking portrait lens. Finally the 70-200mm is an extremely versatile lens with many applications.

I have teleconverters, but rarely use them. They are a pain to handle in the field with the potential to introduce your sensor to muck. They are also slow to change over as far as wildlife is concerned. Then there is the loss of image quality. Many will argue that it is minimal and everything can be solved post. Very simply, that just isn't my approach, so I will stick to my guns.

 

[iamdlewis]

The 50mm Macro is painfully slow to focus so isn't really good for anything outside of macro, just something to be aware of. Tameron makes what reviews say is a great 90mm macro and Sigma a 105mm macro. If you don't mind manual focusing then Venus Optics makes a number of great macro lenses that tend to be >1:1. In other words really look into what others have for the macro lenses as some 3rd party makes really specialize in the macro lenses and Sony's macro offerings a slim.

The 70-300G is a nice lens but again not a fast focusing lens (early 2016 release) but fine for bird in tree or large bird in flight work. The bigger problem for the 70-300G for wildlife is that 300mm really doesn't provide enough reach and you can't use a TC with it. For wildlife you would probably be better off with the Sigma 150-600 Sports lens (~1700 USD) than either the 70-300 or 70-200G+TC.

Don't be afraid of non-Sony lenses.

I believe the 50mm is 1:2

The 50mm Macro is a 1:1. You may be thinking of one of the many other 50mm lenses.