macro filter or lens?

Messages
3,614
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
ive been toying with the idea of getting a macro lens. i was going to get a tamron 90mm f2.8 macro but cant afford one at the moment but will probably get it at the end of the year, but ive noticed the sony 30mm f2.8 macro for £150 which looked brilliant but then i noticed decent shots taken with the macro filters (raynox dcr 250 or hoya close ups) but the trouble is i hear the filters aren't 1:1 so would they still be good for me who does close ups of people, flowers, abstract imagery etc. i dont shoot insects so i didnt need it to be long.

so what would you go for? £50 adapter or £150 lens.

if i got the filter i could also upgrade my minolta 50mm f1.7 to the sony 50mm f1.8 that ive always wanted.
 
if i got the filter i could also upgrade my minolta 50mm f1.7 to the sony 50mm f1.8 that ive always wanted.

Can't really follow how moving from an f/1.7 full frame lens, to a f/1.8 APS-C lens is an upgrade?!

The old Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is excellent on the Sony A900 - if a 20 year old lens design holds up on a 25 megapixel full frame sensor, it means its a VERY good lens.
 
Another alternative would be the old Minolta 50mm f/2.8 macro - you can get these for a decent price - probably only a bit more than the 50mm f/1.8 and that'll sort your macro problem out.

I'd probably go for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 as well, as its probably about the best macro you can buy, and usually does better than Nikon / Canon / Sony in reviews.

As an aside, consider the old Tamron 90mm f/2.5 and a Sony MAF->Adaptall 2 mount, if you get lucky you could pick up a used 90mm f/2.5 for a good price + £20 for an adaptor. That lens will be way better than the 30mm which again is just an APS-C lens.
 
i wish i could afford a tamron but cant and i dont like using old film camera stuff, that 50mm f2.8 macro sound good but the trouble is its a focal length thats already been used and seems silly to have two 50mm's
 
Back
Top