Question on 180 or 200mm 1:1 Macro Lens

[tankm]

Currently have the 105mm macro, was thinking about the 180 or 200mm macro.

Have a discussion with a friend, his conclusion is the $$$ amount spent on it is not really worth it. Here is why...

One consideration he point out was the distance between the subject and the front of lens, which is computed as min_focus_distance - lens_length.

SIGMA 105mm Macro (Currently have)
Subject to front of lens distance = 31.3cm (Min Focus) - 9.75cm (Length) = 21.5cm
Weight = 457g

SIGMA 180mm Macro.
Subject to front of lens distance = 46cm (Min focus) - 18.2cm (Length) = 27.8cm
Weight = 965g

Almost double the weight and price for just an extra 6.3 cm. I believe for the 200mm as well, the actual increase in working distance is less than 10cm as well.

On spec for the 180mm, the minimum focus distance increases 50% but the lens length increase is almost 90%, hence the true increase of the subject to front of lens is much lesser than expected.

Will like to hear from those who have used the 180 or 200mm macro, is it worth considering ? What's the advantages over a 105mm macro on actual field usage ?

[sulhan]

hiee..Pal...

I have used the 100mm macro and owend it before and now using the 200mmm macro.
Here is wht i got to say. The working distance is actually a bonus to allow for more working space escpecially for "insects". Bokeh for still life like flowers macro is also different.

I went for the 200 macro actually to replace the 80-200f2.8(just dont like its weight) for the 200mm range and also the need for a tripod collar for macro (and tele too).

With the 200mm with crop factor its like a 300mm FOV - which is actually tight enough for teleshoot. And this 200mm Focus is very positive accurate - inspite of its slow focus due to its large focus resolution!!!!

One probable disadvantage for some is the inability to have proper hand held shots at a further distance with stopped down aperture say like f16 and above - for 1:1 type of shot.
A tripod or monopod is therefore a must.

I shoot most of my macros on manual focus so AF speed does not matter.

The DOF @f4 on the 200mm macro is great for those soothing type of shots...for my screen saver hehehe....even at f4 the DOF is suitable and good enough for "general subjects" like flowers at the garden(mid iszed ones).

Examples: Shot at F4 wide.




Examples: - Shot at f5.6-ish






With the distance....at 200mm macro.... working with tripod is also easier...
Price wise...the 200mm macro is expensive - ~2K++ (new) used probably
around there too. 100mm macro - will be around $500~1K++ depending on the version.

For an freak like me who was looking for this 200mm from the day i started using KM....
i think its a worthy buy and i really like it. justifying the following:
- all for one for walk about macro and tele combo
(200mm range + 1:1 macro) & alternatively

= 70-210f4 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $900
= 200mmf2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $2K
= 80-200f2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $2.5K
= 70-200ssm + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.6K

= 70-210f4 + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $1.1K
= 200mmf2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $2.3K
= 80-200f2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro)- approx. $2.7K
= 70-200ssm + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.9K

So if you can see, based on my consideration to have tripod collar for both @200mm & 1:1 macro
only the 200f4 is the cheapest solution.....

Your choice...

[Drudkh]

master of macro
very detailed reply

[drake336]

Alternatively, the Tamron 180mm maybe good bang for the buck if the 2k++ price tag for the 200mm f4 is a little hard to swallow... Although plasticky, the image quality is actually up there with the best of them!

[Jango]

How much is the Tamron 180mm new?

Sulhan, is the "slowness" (f4 stop) a problem for macro for you? I used the Tamron 90mm f2.8 and love the fast lens. I could reduce flash power and use more ambience lighting to have nicer backgrounds.

[sulhan]

Originally Posted by Jango How much is the Tamron 180mm new? Sulhan, is the "slowness" (f4 stop) a problem for macro for you? I used the Tamron 90mm f2.8 and love the fast lens. I could reduce flash power and use more ambience lighting to have nicer backgrounds.

Hah ha...good question.
The answer is..no problem.

[tankm]

Thanks for the detail reply ......one question on the working distance. Did you find it much different compare to the 100mm macro ? Based on the calculation, there is only a marginal, not more than 10cm increase in the working distance. Does this small increase allow for better oportunity for insects macro ?

I'm not planning to replace any lens, therefore cannot use the same justification. Looking at 180mm to address the need for longer working distance for the same magnification as the 100mm macro. If you have notice, been experimenting with 1.4x and 2x TC + 100mm. Not too great result.

Looks like there are other benefits as well from using the 200mm macro beside the working distance.

Originally Posted by sulhan hiee..Pal... I have used the 100mm macro and owend it before and now using the 200mmm macro. Here is wht i got to say. The working distance is actually a bonus to allow for more working space escpecially for "insects". Bokeh for still life like flowers macro is also different. I went for the 200 macro actually to replace the 80-200f2.8(just dont like its weight) for the 200mm range and also the need for a tripod collar for macro (and tele too). With the 200mm with crop factor its like a 300mm FOV - which is actually tight enough for teleshoot. And this 200mm Focus is very positive accurate - inspite of its slow focus due to its large focus resolution!!!! One probable disadvantage for some is the inability to have proper hand held shots at a further distance with stopped down aperture say like f16 and above - for 1:1 type of shot. A tripod or monopod is therefore a must. I shoot most of my macros on manual focus so AF speed does not matter. The DOF @f4 on the 200mm macro is great for those soothing type of shots...for my screen saver hehehe....even at f4 the DOF is suitable and good enough for "general subjects" like flowers at the garden(mid iszed ones). With the distance....at 200mm macro.... working with tripod is also easier... Price wise...the 200mm macro is expensive - ~2K++ (new) used probably around there too. 100mm macro - will be around $500~1K++ depending on the version. For an freak like me who was looking for this 200mm from the day i started using KM.... i think its a worthy buy and i really like it. justifying the following: - all for one for walk about macro and tele combo (200mm range + 1:1 macro) & alternatively = 70-210f4 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $900 = 200mmf2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $2K = 80-200f2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $2.5K = 70-200ssm + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.6K = 70-210f4 + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $1.1K = 200mmf2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $2.3K = 80-200f2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro)- approx. $2.7K = 70-200ssm + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.9K So if you can see, based on my consideration to have tripod collar for both @200mm & 1:1 macro only the 200f4 is the cheapest solution..... Your choice...

[tankm]

Any idea how much is the Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro ?

Originally Posted by drake336 Alternatively, the Tamron 180mm maybe good bang for the buck if the 2k++ price tag for the 200mm f4 is a little hard to swallow... Although plasticky, the image quality is actually up there with the best of them!

[drake336]

Tamron 180mm is about $1300+++ but A mount is hard to find now...

The point you brought up about working distance may seem trivial on paper but in practice there is a lot of difference. Some subjects, e.g. skittish insects will never allow you to reach the 1:1 magnification kind of distance. Usually I would estimate about 1:4 - 1:2 optimisstically, that's where the 90-100mm will really pale in comparison to 180-200mm cos you just can't reach with the shorter lens. Another thing which Sulhan brought up about the bokeh is also true, that's something you cannot measure with the specs alone and the bokeh difference btw the 90-100mm vs 180-200mm will be quite visible indeed...

But if you shoot mostly inanimate objects e.g. flowers, the 90-100mm could be good enough...

[tankm]

Thanks all for sharing your experience.....looks like going to look at it seriously now.

Just check with AP and MS, both selling at $12xx w/gst. Limited stock.

Originally Posted by drake336 Tamron 180mm is about $1300+++ but A mount is hard to find now... The point you brought up about working distance may seem trivial on paper but in practice there is a lot of difference. Some subjects, e.g. skittish insects will never allow you to reach the 1:1 magnification kind of distance. Usually I would estimate about 1:4 - 1:2 optimisstically, that's where the 90-100mm will really pale in comparison to 180-200mm cos you just can't reach with the shorter lens. Another thing which Sulhan brought up about the bokeh is also true, that's something you cannot measure with the specs alone and the bokeh difference btw the 90-100mm vs 180-200mm will be quite visible indeed... But if you shoot mostly inanimate objects e.g. flowers, the 90-100mm could be good enough...

[drake336]

Oh, they brought in the A mounts again? How nice, price is reasonable too...

[sinbad]

Was a AP yesterday, they do have the Tamron 180mm at 12xx, tempting...

[yeocolin]

Pleasant surprise to hear the shops are bringing in these lens in A mounts. Maybe the influx of D5D and D7D are finally getting some attention from vendors to bring in lens in A mounts.

[Agetan]

Originally Posted by sulhan hiee..Pal... (200mm range + 1:1 macro) & alternatively = 70-210f4 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $900 = 200mmf2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $2K = 80-200f2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $2.5K = 70-200ssm + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.6K = 70-210f4 + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $1.1K = 200mmf2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $2.3K = 80-200f2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro)- approx. $2.7K = 70-200ssm + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.9K So if you can see, based on my consideration to have tripod collar for both @200mm & 1:1 macro only the 200f4 is the cheapest solution..... Your choice...

70-200 SSM + Extension tubes is great too isn't it? hhahaha... but of course, its more than $2k. 1:1, tripod collar, f2.8 some more... Sorry..

Hart

[tankm]

That's one of the option I'm looking at as well but not with the Minolta but a SIGMA. Have not done the calculation yet, wonder how long an extension tube required, as it's at 200mm.

Originally Posted by Agetan 70-200 SSM + Extension tubes is great too isn't it? hhahaha... but of course, its more than $2k. 1:1, tripod collar, f2.8 some more... Sorry.. Hart

[leeshock]

Originally Posted by sulhan hiee..Pal... .......... = 70-210f4 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $900 = 200mmf2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro) - approx. $2K = 80-200f2.8 + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $2.5K = 70-200ssm + 50mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.6K = 70-210f4 + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $1.1K = 200mmf2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for tele + macro)- approx. $2.3K = 80-200f2.8 +100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro)- approx. $2.7K = 70-200ssm + 100mm macro (less the tripod collar for macro) - approx. $3.9K So if you can see, based on my consideration to have tripod collar for both @200mm & 1:1 macro only the 200f4 is the cheapest solution..... Your choice...

Hi Sulhan,

How do u combine the lenses together? Using Nikon they have the BR 2A which allow you to attach 2 lenses with the same diameter. Do they have something similar for these lenses combination?

[sulhan]

I have tried several method for connecting lens to lens...
One of which is tho glue a similar diametered stepping adapter front to front...

[AncientMariner]

Originally Posted by sulhan I have tried several method for connecting lens to lens... One of which is tho glue a similar diametered stepping adapter front to front...

I don't trust glue and prefer proper screw-on connectors.
Someone organised an MO sometime back and I bought a 49mm coupler which I can use to couple my 50mm f1.7 to any lens (end to end) with the correct stepdown ring.
However, there are reversing adapters which can adapt the lens for reverse mounting directly to the camera:

http://www.adorama.com/MCRRMAX49.html
http://www.adorama.com/MCRRMAX55.html

[tankm]

Did some testing on the focus range using extension tube of 36mm and 20mm on two lenses and found something interesting.

Testing note:
1. For the longest focus range did not test greater than 170cm.
2. The measurement is from the object to the sensor plane. All measurement are an estimate.
3. Measurement done at the longest focal range of each lens.

Lens 1: Minolta 70-210 f4.
No tube - Focus range from 110cm
20mm tube - Focus range from 91cm to greater than 170cm
36mm tube - Focus range from 85cm to 170cm
56mm tube - Focus range from 80cm to 130cm

Lens 2: Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8
No tube - Focus range from 180cm
20mm tube - Focus range from 110cm to greater than 170cm
36mm tube - Focus range from 95cm to 135cm
56mm tube - Focus range from 80cm to 100cm

Remarks:
1. Between the two lens, it seems the 70-210 f4 is more flexible when used with an extension tube.
2. The 20mm seems to be the handy tube to use to provide a more flexible working range.
3. Working range is very restricted for the SIGMA on the 36mm and 56mm tube.
4. Even with 56mm tube and at closest focus distance, still not able to achieve the same magnification ratio of the 105mm 1:1 macro.

[sulhan]

to get more magnification....go towards wide angle. 50mm or 35mm will give you great magnification....BUT!!!....working distance may be too close...