Best macro lens?

[Eriksen]

I recently bought two very cheap macro lenses. Pentax 100mm f:4 and Nikkor 55mm f:3.5. Are these good lenses? Will it be worth the extra cost to also buy the well reputed Zeiss 100mm macro, or will it only give a marginal better image quality?

[Ray Parkhurst]

Nikkor 55mm is tough to beat within its limitations. I don't know much about the Pentax. The Zeiss will give you a bit less "technical" look if that's what you're after.

[kds315*]

The Zeiss 100mm ZF honestly was a disappointment for me, wide open it shows massive CA
and I sold it right away because of that. The older Contax Macro Planar 2.8/100mm is a good
lens however.

[sergtum]

every year I think about purchasing a 100mm macro. but every year I take a picture of my favorite mushrooms a simple lens. if necessary, I use a macro ring. however, I continue to live in hope about the macro 100mm. what do you think about makroSigma 105mm f2.8 for NEX?

[TrueLoveOne]

[sergtum]

only for example:



Индустар 50/3,5 (red П) with macro ring

[WolverineX]

tough to say which macro lens is the best, there are a lot great macro lenses...you can only say which is your favourite...mine is Canon FD 200mm/4 macro

[Lightshow]

Finding the best is a challenge because many are very good, the Nikkor 55/3.5 should be up there.
My current faves are: Konica 55/3.5, X-Fujinon 55/3.5, Canon FD 50/3.5, Leica R 60, Leica R 100 APO.
I'd like to get the CV 125, Topcor 58/3.5.

[itsfozzy]

[itsfozzy]

A vote for the Canon FD 200mm f/4 Macro

[sergtum]

ah, ah, ah...

[listera]

[DConvert]

I believe the Pentax 100mm macro is quite good, though I only have the bellows version myself & rarely use it (bellows are a bit of a pain in the camera bag!).
Longer focal lengths are nice to have for the increased working distance, but your likely to have to pay quite a bit to get a 180mm or 200mm macro.

[itsfozzy]

[itsfozzy]

Someone usually mentions it for this kind of question, so I'll do it this time;

Reversing a decent wide angle lens or using an enlarger lens on a helicoid will at least equal just about any macro lens, and in most cases, beat them. And at a fraction of the price!

[Eriksen]

[Lightshow]

Just an enlarger lens and some way to focus/change magnification.
I have a Novoflex M39 bellows I use with mine.

[itsfozzy]

[kryss]

Industar 61LZ 50mm f2.8 Macro Appx. $50 US best bang for the buck without doubt. CLICK for large.

[Ray Parkhurst]

Most of my studio work is done with bellows and enlarging/duplicating lenses, but when I go out to shoot flowers or bugs, I use the Venus/Laowa 60mm. It is technically very sharp and has low CA, but also has a lot of 3D/living character like the Zeiss.

[dickb]

I would say the most important thing to determine is what kind of macrophotography you want to do and how much working distance you need. Longer focal lengths have more working distance (distance between the lens and the subject) and make it easier to isolate a subject against an out of focus background, but are generally heavier and more expensive. Shorter focal lengths are better for showing a subject in its environment, but the shorter working distance can be a problem with certain nervous subjects and you may end up casting shadows over it. Most macro lenses are quite good, though. The one Pentax 100/4 I have is a little low in contrast, IIRC. The Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 is well regarded. I agree about the Canon FD 200/4 macro being a great lens if you want reach. I often take a Tokina 90/2.5 with me, or the Leitz 60/2.8, and the old Canon 35/2.8 macro for higher magnification.

[devinw]

I will just add I have the Minolta MD Macro Rokkor 100mm 3.5 and it's a very good lens!

[y]

Probably the best "consumer" macro lens is Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5.

It's a stunning performer in every regard. Lucky ones who bought a copy before its price went to current levels...

[piggsy]

What are you trying to shoot with it? Dickb has the right idea so far

I have the Olympus 60 2.8 (AF), Vivitar S1 and Tokina 90 2.5 macros, the Vivitar 135mm 2.8 Close Focusing and the Tamron 180mm f3.5 (adapted, MF on mine). They all have different uses and things they're most convenient for. The 60 is great for long walks and I use it for cross polarised stuff most often since it will just eat my small 49mm cir-pl without issue, and it's very light - important when you have 12aa batteries all around the rig



The 90s seem to lose the least from high apertures (usable well up to F16 on m43) and are decent for all around use with good reach and decent lower light, but are less convenient if you run into something to do serious >1:2 macro on. However they will be perfectly fine even used at silly high apertures with stacked diopters and a cross polarising filter and lose ... not much doing it.



The 135 is a neat all-around performer and has some useful characteristics at 2.8, and if you stick to around 2.8-5.6 and 1:2, it doesn't give up too much to the modern 60 2.8 there. If you find something that suits what it does (flare-y/fringe-y on highlights, etc) it helps.



The 180 is fantastic for mixed birding and long range macro, and it gets to about 4:1 with my diopters at usable quality, but is frigging heavy and once you also stick a flash on the rig it's a pain to carry around and hold it steady.







If I had to narrow it to just one it'd be the bokinas, they're all fine lenses though. The 135 is something I use less now I have the 180 - it's just kind of awkwardly not great enough at anything for its size and weight in comparison - but I'm still glad to have it around.

If you are interested in the Zeiss 100/2, there was a comparison I saw someone do if it vs the voight 125/2.5

http://thepictorial.com/reviews/clash-of-the-titan-macros/

I'm personally not sure I've seen an image from either that makes me feel like I'm missing much not having them vs what I already have, though I certainly wouldn't pass either of them up if they were around in my budget . But yeah, anyway - are you shooting flat stuff that doesn't move like coins? Dead stuff on a stage? Live stuff hand held in the field?

[cooltouch]

I have accumulated several macro lenses over the years. Currently, I own a copy of a Pentax 100mm f/4 -- but it's a late M42 SMC-Tak, dunno if Pentax changed the formula when they switched mounts. It's an excellent lens. I also own three 55mm Micro-Nikkors -- not on purpose, it's just the way things turned out. Two are pre-AI f/3.5's and one is an AIs f/2.8. All three are tack sharp. I also own a Canon 100mm f/4 macro, a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, a 200mm Micro-Nikkor, and a copy of the much-vaunted Kiron 105mm macro, although mine is a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.8 (part of a Lester Dine kit). Oh, and I also have a copy of the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focus, which is really a macro even though it doesn't say it is.

Several years ago, I conducted a comparison test between three of the above macros -- my oldest pre-AI 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro and the Vivitar S1 105mm f/2.8 macro, plus a zoom. My conclusions were that that old 55mm Micro-Nikkor and the Tamron 90mm were best overall, in an effective dead heat with each other. I have an article at my blog with photos, showing results.

http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/?p=56

I think you will be hard pressed finding a better macro lens than the Nikon 55mm. These lenses, especially the pre-AI ones, often go for peanuts on eBay, so they represent a truly spectacular bargain. The Pentax will cost you more, just because it is a 100mm. But if you can do without the greater standoff it provides, then I'd go with the Nikon 55.