affordable Vintage Macro

[Nightjar]

Hi,

Any suggestion for a reasonable priced macro lens? Preferable at the 100mm end,
but I'm open to everything. If I had the choice Id probable choose a 100mm Contax,
but thats too expensive.

Thanks.

Cheers

[DigiChromeEd]

What camera are you intending using it on?

[Kei]

Tamron 90mm would be one of my first go to lenses along with the tokina and vivitar 90mm macros. (though the latter seem to have quite a reputation, which no doubt influences their cost) I'd also strongly consider the options from medium format like the mamiya 80mm f4 C and the 120mm f4 A. The tamron 52B and 52BB are known to suffer from flare issues with sensor reflections. The later model 72B should be much better as it is the same as the AF model in an adaptall config, it is rather rare though.

[eno789]

Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro, "Plastic Fantastic", is a budget lens I can recommend. Available in various mounts, get the manual focus version though.

See
https://www.flickr.com/groups/cosina
for samples.

I don't think you can beat its performance/price ratio with any other 90 ~ 105mm macro lens. Believe me, I have quite a few macro lenses in this focal length range.

[Lloydy]

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Tamron 55B 90 / 2.5 it's a great lens and the blue spot can be mostly avoided. It's one of those problems that seems to get worse the more it's discussed on the internet.
If you are prepared to use a heavy lens, then the Minolta Rokkor Macro 100 / 3.5 is superb, it's a solid, high quality lens that delivers excellent results. Personally, I rate the Rokkor far more than the Tamron. And the Tamron is very good.
Both of these lenses need the dedicated converters though, so make sure they are with the lens if you buy either of them.

[Nightjar]

I mostly intend to use it on my FS 700, though It would be nice
to be able to use it on an EOS FF.

Can the Mamiya 80/120 be converted to Nex/Eos? They seem to
be quite high quality!

Best

[piggsy]

I just picked up a Vivitar 135 2.8 Close Focus lens, I'll let you know how it goes when it arrives. It's a 1:2 lens but then quite a few of the cheaper macros (and even not so cheap ones) will be the same way. Seems that people like it, and it's not very expensive.

[tb_a]

[cooltouch]

As a couple of others here have already mentioned, the Tamron 90mm macro is probably gonna offer you more bang for the buck than just about any other. It is one incredibly sharp lens, with great color and contrast. Plus, it's usually rather plentiful on sites like eBay, which tends to keep the price down. Often it can be had for under $100, which as far as top-notch macro optics go, is a great deal. And of course another handy thing about the Tamron 90 is that it is an adaptall-2 lens, so you'll be able to use it on most any camera you can imagine. And if you're like me, where you have more than one 35mm/digital system (I currently have six!) it really pays to have a Tamron.

[Aanything]

The micro nikkor 3.5/55 is an incredible lens, imho, and it can be found in the €100-150 range.

[Nightjar]

[Kei]

[tb_a]

Nightjar,

Sorry, was obviously overlooked. However, for movies maybe other criterias are important. There I can't help you anyway.

For pictures it makes a lot of difference whether you are looking for a Sony FF camera like the A7 family as you can use more or less any lens ever produced (with very few exceptions) or a Canon SLR where you are restricted a little bit due to the design of the camera.

As a basic rule you can say that the bigger the sensor is the more is it likely that shortcomings of the used lens could eventually affect the final picture.

The other story is the distance between the front of the lens and the object. This may be important for insects as they tend to flee if you are coming to close. So for insects a minimum of 100mm would be recommended. More is even better. Here would the already recommendet Vivitar converter give you the most flexibility, depending on the lenses you already have.
You may read this thread and see my example of a bee shot with that converter: http://forum.mflenses.com/another-tulip-t71006.html
Also the difference of the tulip might be of interest (with and without converter).

For general macro shooting (besides of very tiny animals like insects) the focus length is not that important. More important is the desired magnification and maybe also special light and presentation aids. If you desire to step deeper into the macro cosmos it may also be an option to look for a bellow/lens combination. Because of the narrow depth of field it may be an advantage to have a bellow with shifting capabilities. That is the optimal configuration and probably more important than any lens used.

Finally you should also consider how often and how intense you want to step into it. Maybe some basic experience with very low cost accessories would help you further to avoid a heavy investment for equipment you don't really need. Also close-up lenses put in front of existing lenses could be an easy and low cost first step. I've done also very good macros with such adapters when I didn't had a digital camera with exchangeable lenses in the beginning of digital photography. The results have been more than good. However, there are also some lousy lenses around. I could show you examples if you would like.
So it could eventually make more sense to invest e.g. in a macro- or ring-flash and shoot with relatively cheap macro accessories instead of buying a new macro lens.

The decision is not that easy. That I know for sure from my own experience.

[Nightjar]

[tb_a]

Nightjar,

In essence there is no difference in the outcome whether you are using a bellow or macro tubes.
The bellow is more flexible.
However, this assembly with a 100mm macro head seems to be rather expensive and I would not really recommend it to you as the front axis where the lens is mounted is not looking to be turn- or shiftable.
There are better ones than this model from other manufactorers and they are cheaper also.
The basic principle is always the same: The distance from the sensor is increased by a tube to increase the magnification and to reduce the distance from the front lens to the object. That is true for all different ways. The dedicated macro lens like the one you intended to buy is the most portable and flexible compromise but after all still a compromise. It's somehow in the middle between a bellow and the rings and includes already the lens.
The ultimate solution is a bellow with shifting or tilting possibilities to play around with the depth of field (DOF) which would otherwise always be parallel to the sensor.
A dedicated macro head like shown on the bellows from Leica is nothing else than a lens without focusing helical like any enlarger lens from the old analog times.
My recommendation would rather be a bellow like the Minolta Auto Bellow III or the Nikon PB-4 or the Contax auto bellow. Novoflex sells such appliances even new. You can check that on their site: http://www.novoflex.com/de/produkte/makrofotografie--blitztechnik/balgengeraete/ Also examples of how to use that are shown there.
So it's more important to have a bellow which can be used with any lens than to have a dedicated macro lens which narrow down your possibilities. Macro heads (lenses) or (cheaper) enlarger lenses can be bought already for relatively low prices. The deliver usually very good qualitiy, also the cheaper ones.
If you google a little bit for "macro" and "bellow" and "how to" you will find a lot of information about this subject in the web.
However the more you get into the macro cosmos the more important is also the light and flash problem with that. Here are (also for portable use) solutions like a ring or macro flash recommendable. I have done a lot of insects shots with a ring flash. Without flash the exposure time might be too long to avoid camera shake without tripod and insects don't wait for you to be ready.
So maybe a good idea would be to read more in advance about the subject and decide afterwards the most suitable solution.
As I already stated: This could avoid a lot of frustration beforehand and the spending of money for unnecessary equipment.

Cheers

[cooltouch]

Nightjar,

Well, Thomas has given you some good suggestions I think. But in the mean time, while you're still digesting things, I have a couple of suggestions that might help you understand things a bit better. I'm gonna assume you have both a 50mm and a wide angle, like a 35mm or a 28mm.

Ok, now you don't need tubes or adapters for this little experiment. Just select a subject, something close to you. Now take your camera -- and remove the lens. Next point the camera at the subject and hold the 50mm lens in front of the camera, aligned so that the light rays entering the lens will fall on the camera's mirror or sensor. Now, set the lens against the lens mount and then slowly move it away from the camera, keeping it centered on the subject. You'll also likely have to move in closer to the subject. You'll reach a point where the subject will come into focus when you've gotten to that spot where a tube of that depth works. This is essentially all a bellows is doing as well, except it provides infinite flexibility, rather than fixed distance points. At any rate, you can see for yourself how this stretching of a distance between the lens and the camera -- and adjusting your position relative to the subject -- affects enlargement.

Now, for some fun stuff. Take that wide angle lens, either a 28mm or a 35mm or whatever, reverse it, and hold the front of the lens against your camera's lens mount. Now, choose a subject you can get very close to -- probably within a couple inches or so. Look through the camera's viewfinder as you move your camera toward the subject. At some point, it will come into focus, and you will see that you're looking at your subject at a significant amount of magnification. There's a formula for determining this, but I don't recall it offhand. You can buy reversing rings which are meant just for this purpose. Talk about a cheap macro lens -- you already have one. You just need to buy a reversing ring for your lens's filter thread.

EDIT:
This just occurred to me. It's a technique that works very well. There's a rather well-known way of getting macro enlargements. You use two lenses of different focal lengths, say 50mm and 100mm and you use an adapter that is threaded on both ends. Let's say your 50mm lens has a filter thread of 52mm and your 100mm lens has an adapter thread of 55mm. You buy a lens coupling adapter of 52mm/55mm, thread the two lenses together and then you mount the 100mm lens to the camera (always mount the longer focal length to the camera). Set the 50mm lens wide open. Adjust exposure on the 100mm lens and use the 100mm lens for focusing.

You can get a significant amount of magnification using two lenses this way. Best of all, it's free if you already have two lenses that will work well together -- all it's gonna cost you is the price of a lens coupling adapter -- or whatever they're called. I recommend you google this concept and read up on it. There is a formula that you can use to determine the amount of magnification, plus you will find recommended focal lengths and directions how to do it.



Enjoy!