Macro Advice for a Sony A300

donkeymusic

donkeymusic

Messages
2,524
Name
Carlo
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello

i would love to purchase a macro lens for my sony camera, looking at sony branded macros they are more expensive that i planned to spend so was looking at what alternatives are available that would suit a Sony camera and also be cheaper.

What do i need to consider when looking at macro lenses?

Thanks for any help offered.
 
Hey Mate
I'm just starting out only got my a300 on saturday so don't know what to recommend for you. But don't forget Sigma and Tamron make lenses for the Alpha mount and if you see any Konica Minolta lenses will work too.

This forum may help you out some, being as it devoted to our brand of camera :)
 
hi donkeymusic,and welcome to talk photography :wave:

okay,probably the biggest deciding factor will be what you want to shoot.if you want to shoot insects and bugs,then a longer focal length will be needed otherwise you may spook your intended subject.a good all rounder is normally in the 90-105 focal length range,with the tamron 90mm macro and sigma 105 macro being very popular.i have the sigma 105,which has given me great results and i'm very happy with it....

this one....

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1002627
 
hi you have mentioned a 90-105 focal length

would a 55-200 be worth considering?

there is one ebay that i am watching but not sure what i really need to be looking at and just seen a 70 -300 as well,

what would you suggest for doing the best macros?

thanks
 
donkeymusic said:
hi you have mentioned a 90-105 focal length

would a 55-200 be worth considering?

there is one ebay that i am watching but not sure what i really need to be looking at and just seen a 70 -300 as well,

what would you suggest for doing the best macros?

thanks
Click to expand...

the 55-200 you mention is not a macro lens.macro lens tend to be fixed focal length lens as in the one in the link i posted in my last reply.macro lens give a reproduction of 1:1,and allow you to get really close to your subject,as in this close...

DSC02589.jpg


both the lens you mention are telephoto zoom lens'..and are good for sports and wildlife/birds etc...but not macro.another alternative is to buy a set of extension tubes which fit in between your camera and lens,and work very well.
 
are right that makes more sense now, so i need to be looking at a lens with a set focal length?
 
side point wide can those zoom lenses advertise as being macro if they aint?
 
not all fixed length lens are macro...complicated i know.manufacturers do sometimes state macro on their lens,and although they will let you get reasonable results,they will generally only offer 1:3,or 1:2 at best,so a close up lens really...but not a bad place to start to see if it's where you want to go..

extension tubes are available from e-bay(cheap ones that won't allow you to autofocus)or from most good photography outlets like warehouse express.you must make sure that they are sony/minolta fit (as you would with any lens)as here...

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1011650

something like this lens would give you the best of both worlds,as in good for wildlife/sports,but will let you shoot reasonably close,but not true macro...

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1011618

hope this helps :thumbs:
 
I've got the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super lens Stan has linked to and the image below demonstrates roughly the closest you're gonna get. Not as impressive as a true macro lens but decent enough in my opinon.

best-ever2.jpg
 
donkeymusic said:
hi you have mentioned a 90-105 focal length

would a 55-200 be worth considering?

there is one ebay that i am watching but not sure what i really need to be looking at and just seen a 70 -300 as well,

what would you suggest for doing the best macros?

thanks
Click to expand...

I have the 70-300 Sigma and find it a great lens TBH but I do admit that I've not had all that much time to shoot recently since I got it, so I've only had a couple of hours use with it sadly
 
Gemok

i think as an initial macro lens the one you reccommend would do me just fine, from your example i would get close enough for what i want to do

will have a look around at them today

cheers

found this one on ebay, would this gve me similar result as Gemoks image?

thanks
 
donkeymusic said:
Gemok

i think as an initial macro lens the one you reccommend would do me just fine, from your example i would get close enough for what i want to do

will have a look around at them today

cheers
Click to expand...

I have that very lens for sale (Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG APO Macro Sony mount) in the Classifieds on this forum!! ;)
 
with my camera i have the standard lens that came with the camera and i also purchased a Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 Telephoto Zoom Lens which i guess if got a lens that was 70-300mm then it would be redundant really?

any ideas?

cheers
 
donkeymusic said:
just to help me understand what i need to be looking at, if i get a lens which is say a 70-300 macro, how far away do i need to be stood to get a good macro shot, never used one before so that may sound like a stupid question.

cheers
Click to expand...

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro has a minimum focusing distance of 95cm (about 3ft) when in macro mode. This can be very useful when trying to capture butterflies, and dragonflies that fly off if you get too close!
Here is some info on the lens on the Sigma site.
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70-300mmAPO.htm
Hope that helps
 
okay it all making more sense to me now, so next question is that i have seen two lenses pretty much identical one is tamron and the other sigma, which would you recommend?

cheers for all the advice
 
donkeymusic said:
okay it all making more sense to me now, so next question is that i have seen two lenses pretty much identical one is tamron and the other sigma, which would you recommend?

cheers for all the advice
Click to expand...

Well as I am selling a Sigma perhaps I am not the best person to reply, but I have to say I was very pleased with the images produced by the sigma.
I read very good reports on it before I bought it, and if I had my Sony A300 still I wouldn't be selling it.
If you do decide on a Sigma make sure it is the APO DG, and not the DG as the former is the better (although more expensive) of the two.
I am sure others will be along with their own views soon
 
tamron are offering a cheaper option for a similar spec

but looking on jessops it seems that the sigma is cheaper
 
yeah just need to purchase one now, will post some photos when i get it of my first shots
 
with my camera i have the standard lens that came with the camera and i also purchased a Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 Telephoto Zoom Lens which i guess if got a lens that was 70-300mm then it would be redundant really?

any ideas?

cheers
 
donkeymusic said:
with my camera i have the standard lens that came with the camera and i also purchased a Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 Telephoto Zoom Lens which i guess if got a lens that was 70-300mm then it would be redundant really?

any ideas?

cheers
Click to expand...

if you get the 70-300 lens,along with your 18-70 kit lens you will have 18-300 covered,so basically yes,your 55-200 would be redundant...but you could always sell it to get back some of your outlay for the 70-300 :thumbs:
 
Gemok said:
*cough* where are the sample shots then??
Click to expand...

Good point, once i get use to i will post a few only done objects lying around like keys, coins, and the clearness and detail shown is amazing well impressed.

one thing i did try a which i hoped i could get close up was a fly like the two examples posted above, yet although i manage to get right in on a coin trying it on a fly was impossible and no detail was shown.

wondered if anyone had any tips for shooting macro? should i be using a flash?

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top