Macro lens, is it necessary?

[Vajmeng]

I have been wanting to purchase the 90mm FE Macro, but is it really worth it? Can't I get the same result with a zoom lens? Any input would be appreciated.

#noob

 

[Kriszti]

I've actually purchased a mount converter so I can continue to use my Tamron 90mm macro lens on my AR7iv. I find reading the reviews have all been very helpful, but it's down to what you want to achieve. The key for me is quality of depth of field, bokeh and lack of vignetting. Each lens has different qualities, but with a prime lens (fixed focal length) you generally get better image quality and sharper images, there's less glass so you get more light and less diffraction - allowing you to photograph sharper images with less light. I hope this helps.

 

[Jane]

I have both the 100-400 and the 90mm macro. I use the macro when I go out with macro in mind but I find the zoom to work great as a substitute when I am shooting other wildlife and a macro opportunity comes up. the 100-400 focuses to 3'.

 

[Vajmeng]

Thank you all. I'll have to do some more research. I definitely like the bokeh. I believe that that is a necessary in those type shots.

 

[Atmfrank]

A little nostalgia here: I came to Sony in 2008 from Minolta. First camera: A700 alpha mount, which supported all the old Minolta glass. One of the lenses I still have in the bag (sometimes) is the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (w/ LA-EA4). This lens is extremely sharp and has the typical "Minolta" touch and great bokeh. I am not suggesting this combo for someone who started with the E mount, but the point is not to overspend on a macro lens, unless the plan is to do major macro photography. The LA-EA3 with manual focus only + 100mm /f2.8 is still a lot cheaper than the Sony 90mm. Do you need AF for macro photography?

 

[Jmartinayers]

A macro len has many uses...it take great portraits.

 

[WeeMalky]

Hi, all I agree with AtmFrank although the FE90mm gets rave reviews do you want to spend all that amount of money on something that's not used very often unless you are into Macro/Portraits. Like Frank, I have the Minolta 100mm f/ 2.8 Macro with the LA-EA3. It is a very good lens then I don't do a lot of macros although it came into its own during lockdown when I tried doing different things with it which I found fun mind I am only a hobby photographer. This photo I took yesterday 18/10/20 during the heavy rain in Scotland well you have to try something

 

[PeterDClark]

Playing with your Don Johnson or Magnum PI action figures again I see there WeeMalky. Nifty photo

 

[seuadr]

i guess it would depend on the lens you are trying to use in it's place. the 200-600 has an absurd minimum focus distance, i'd pretty much need a spotter to point out what i was trying to shoot with it - on the other hand, the 18-135 has a great minimum focus distance, and i often use it as a poor man's macro.

 

[Drewid]

I have both the 100-400 and the 90mm macro. I use the macro when I go out with macro in mind but I find the zoom to work great as a substitute when I am shooting other wildlife and a macro opportunity comes up. the 100-400 focuses to 3'.

I should have a go!

 

[ChrisJ]

Neither the 24-70mm kit lens our the 50mm prime which I have, will close focus. You can do still life and table top but not macro.
I'm still looking for something for affordable macro!