Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2011, 3:47 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Anonymous77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6
Default Macro lens for sony a580

hi,
i got my sony a580 a week ago.i am very very pleased with the picture quality.but the kit lens is not seeming enough sharp for my type of photography,i attached a link below to show u what i mean by sharp,

that picture was taken by a sony cybershot t900.
i wonder if i could take such sharp pictures using my tiny sensored point and shoot why cant i do the same using a DSLR? i really dont know,can anyone help?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninika77/5041604690/

it seems like im in need of a macro lens,but i was not prepared for this when i was planning to move on to the dslr world.so now i need suggestion about which one to buy.after some research i found 3 lenses,
  1. tamron 60 f/2 macro
  2. sigma 105 f/2.8 macro
  3. tamron 90 f/2.8 macro
is there anyone who used one of those 3??i want to know which one is the sharpest upto 1:1 magnification and can provide the best resolution.thanks in advance for any suggestion,advice or information
Anonymous77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 31, 2011, 4:12 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I've just moved your post to the Sony dSLR section where you should be more views and the answer you desire.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 5:21 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

There are no bad macro lenses. What matters is the focal length that's appropriate for the subject.

Your sample shot was taken at a focal length of 6.2mm with a Sony T900, which is about the same angle of view as a 25mm lens would give you with your A580. The closest match would be Sony's 30mm f/2.8 macro lens.

But macro lenses with short focal lengths require you to get very close to the subject, so you may block your own light, and you may frighten animate subjects. A longer focal length macro lens will allow you to back up a little more, so you can take advantage of available light, and so small creatures won't scurry away before you can get the shot.

And, again, there are no bad macro lenses, so you'll be fine with any that fit your budget and subject.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 6:57 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Old Boat Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 362
Default

Congratulations on your new A580. Here is a shot I posted taken with the 90mm Tamron.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/cl...g-kitchen.html

TCav gave you the same advice he gave me when I was looking at macro lenses and he is correct when he says the shorter lenses can be a problem with both lighting and being to close for comfort with most critters. I have a Minolta 50mm macro lens that works great with my table top light box but does not work so well out in the field.

The only advice I can offer is give thought to what you will be photographing and pick your focal length based on average distance from subject

Steve
Old Boat Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 7:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Clint501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Suwanee, Ga
Posts: 2,511
Default

I'm using the Sigma 105mm. So far I really like it. Although I'm not very experienced with it.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/cl...ails-pace.html

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/so...-shot-a55.html
__________________





Have Fun - Be Nice - Don't Break Anything
Clint501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 10:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

Just reading here for a moment so I don't have a lot to add, but your choice number 3 (tamron 90) grows very long as you focus closer (from a review). I don't know if this is normal for a macro lens but I doubt it. Could be a real issue if you're set up tight and then want to focus just a bit more.
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 12:07 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Anonymous77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6
Default

thanks everybody for all of ur well thought advices.
as tcav mentioned no macro lens is really bad.i think all the macro lenses will show the same sharpness or so.price is an issue,im a total noob as u all can understand,and am only 21.so i want to spend less as well as want to get a lens which will last for a long time.thats why construction of the lens is also a deciding factor.that being said,i wonder why the tamron 90 and sigma 105 costs more than the newer tamron 60 f/2,are they optically lot more better(but they dont have IF)?? i can also use the tammy 60 as a very sharp low light portrait lens,ang get pleasing bokeh.but again i need the longer one to capture insects and to get more working distance.
so i can not draw any conclusion here.i really dont know which one is more important.can any one suggest which one is needed more? a lens for macro+portrait or a lens with longer working distance??

Last edited by Anonymous77; Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM.
Anonymous77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 12:20 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

If you want to shoot watch parts, you can get by with the 50/2.8 macro lenses from Sony or Sigma, or even Sony's 30/2.8 macro. But if you want macro shots of bees, hornets, or poisonous snakes, I suggest the Tamron 180/3.5 (only because nobody makes anything longer. )

Any macro lens can do portraiture well. In fact, if a macro lens will have weakness in that area, it will be because it's too sharp. (Not everyone wants to see every pore and blemish in a portrait.) For portraiture, too short a focal length gives a distorted perspective, but long is ok, and all you need to blur the background is to put some distance between the subject and the background (which can get tough when using longer lenses.)

What's your budget?

What types of macro subjects do you want to shoot? Can you link to some examples?

What types of portraits do you wnat to shoot? Can you link to some examples?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 1:45 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Anonymous77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6
Default

i used to take close up shots of flower only,but now it seems bees,flies are more interesting,as well as static stuffs like watch parts as u mentioned.my budget is 400 bucks,maybe 450 top.and i really dont want to die(bitten to death by a rather disgusting snake ),i thing sigma 105 will be good choice then or the tamron one??
i attached a pic of a tiny fly,i captured yesterday.i cropped the pic to get a decent portrait(!!!) of mr. fly.
Attached Images
 
Anonymous77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2011, 6:12 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Unfortunately there is no one lens that will satisfy all your needs. I have dedicated 1:1 macro lenses from 50 - 180mm, and I take a lot of insects. I never use the 50 for insects - you have to get too close to the subject, which is likely to leave in a hurry, and the DOF is quite shallow that close up! The Tamron 90 is widely recommended and perhaps the most highly rated, and from what I have seen it is the most widely used of the third party macros on these forums. It is a superb lens and I have used it a lot, but you often need a longer length for those subjects you can't get close to. Surprisingly enough, the one I use quite often because of its flexibility is the Tamron 70-300 macro zoom (a 1:2 macro in the 180 - 300mm range) - it is not the greatest as a telephoto, but it is surprisingly good as a macro (more properly a close-up); it is not as flat all across the field as a flat-field macro, but your insects are usually in the center, where it is sharpest. Best of all, it is much less expensive than any dedicated flat-field macro, so it is possible to have both the Tamron 90 and the macro zoom. The macro zoom is a great walk-about lens when you are faced with varying opportunities - a single focal length can result in many missed opportunities in such situations, although it may be superior to the zoom when you can plan ahead and make the best use of it. In tight quarters, the zoom or a long FL macro can require you to back up too far to get in focus, so you need the shorter length in those cases.
__________________
.
.
If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade.

Last edited by penolta; Jan 31, 2011 at 6:23 PM.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 AM.