What is everyone using for Macro lenses?

[AllardR]

Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X. Due to the relatively low DOF I'm not a big macro fan. I use this lens with a Leofoto MP-1505 macro slider, tripod, macro tent and additional light sources. And - oh horror - focus stacking. As an amateur geologist I use this combination for photographing in full DOF the surfaces of the rocks I found on my field trips.

 

[iain clyne]

up till now I have used my 200-600mm

 

[dragonsdreams]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

Without a TC it's basically half macro. With the 1.4x they say it's 0.7. With the 2x it's 1:1.

So yes, you need the 2x for full 1:1 macro.

 

[Cαscαdian]

I have several ways to play. I have E-mount extension tubes, a pk-E adapter for my old Sigma 50/2.8 macro, and I have a Minolta AF 50/2.8 RS macro plus EA4. I hope to try the variants and discard one or two soon.
Native macros are above my pay pension grade.

 

[Clix Pix]

Has anyone used the relatively new Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM2 for macro? And by macro I mean very very small wildlife e.g. slime moulds. I realise it probably needs a 2x TC for proper macro work. Thanks!

I use the 70-200mm G f/4 which is more specifically geared to shooting macro images . It has become one of my favorite lenses for walking around outdoors and capturing flowers and such.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I use the 70-200mm G f/4 which is more specifically geared to shooting macro images . It has become one of my favorite lenses for walking around outdoors and capturing flowers and such.

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

 

[AlphaWorld]

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

Both will do the trick, but I just sold the 70-200 f/4 G II, and I’m keeping the 90mm f/2.8 ( partly because It’s f/2.8 at 1:1, whereas the 70-200 is f/8 at 1:1).

If you like the 70-200 f/2 G II, it’s a perfectly good choice. For flowers, where you rarely need more than 2:1, it adds the convenience of zoom.

 

[Clix Pix]

What do you think is a more appropriate lens for flower photography, a 90mm macro or this 70-200 f4?

Depends upon the situation. If I am shooting a flower indoors (which I often do during wintertime and/or bad weather other times of the year) the Sony 90mm f/2.8 is my lens of choice. This lens actually probably has been my most-used in the years I've been shooting Sony FF!!

When going outdoors to shoot, I find that I prefer the 70-200mm f/4 macro because it gives me more reach in situations where I otherwise would experience difficulties. I'm short (5'1) and when I want to shoot blossoms on a tree sometimes I just can't reach adequately with the 90mm. I have been more than happy with this lens in the year or so that I've had it. Definitely a "keeper"!

 

[Dr Mike]

I love my 90mm sony 2.8

for operating theatre it's advantage is that you don't have to be too close, underwater you want to be as close as you can to help the flash and reduce the amount of water between lens and subject

just taken charge of the oldish sony 30mm 3.5 very nice compact lens which is good as a a day to day lens, not in the same league as the 90mm for quality and you have to be incredibly close to get 1:1 but it will have it's uses

I have some extension tubes too. These are good but really limit your focal range whereas true macro goes from 1:1 to infinity - the 90mm is a cracking lens for portrait and other stuff too

When I was in the full sized Nikon universe I used a 60mm f2.8 macro which was the most incredibly versatile lens and built like a tank.