looking for a macro lens

I would recommend a Sony lens like these:

Lens Rentals

Preferably the 90mm for longer working distances.

Joe

A decent phone camera(oxymoron?) can produce a pretty good image, if you just need an image for a research paper. This wasp is about 1/2 of the full image(no PP) and downsized from the full resolution for posting purposes, but it is extremely sharp when viewed full size(click on image for better view). I have shot a lot of bees with the phone and the images are very good. Here is a link to another highly cropped image:

https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=273505

Joe

Just stepped outside and took this one with Samsung s8. Cropped to 1/2 frame and no PP. Lower resolution for posting purposes. Bee is approximately half an inch long.
Joe

My favorite macro lens for Sony FE is the Voigtlander - it's a little longer in focal length so a bit more working distance and absolutely superb IQ.

Assuming the bees are on flowers and not immobilized I'd strongly recommend you just get an RX10M4. At 600mm equivalent you will get enough magnification to photograph the bees and Varroa mites with enough shutter speed and depth of field. Trying to get close enough to live bees with 90mm or even 150mm is going to be an exercise in enormous frustration. If you need closer focus you can add a diopter.

sdaconsulting wrote:.......Trying to get close enough to live bees with 90mm or even 150mm is going to be an exercise in enormous frustration....

Your bees must be very different from the ones around here. I used to use a 60mm macro with no problems. I got a 200 macro and it gave me more working distance. Now I use the phone camera with no problems on live, active bees in the warmth of the day when they are most busy, and in the early morning when they are not. I never move aggressively or swat at them and they leave me alone. 

Joe
Here’s another phone image:

1/8th inch is awfully small and conventional 1:1 macro lens may not give you the images you seek.  I suggest considering a Canon MP-E 65mm macro with an adapter, which would give you magnifications up to 5:1.  You can rent the lens and a Metabones IV adapter from Lens Rentals for just over $100/week if you don’t intend to keep the kit.

archfotos wrote:

cwdavis wrote:1/8th inch is awfully small and conventional 1:1 macro lens may not give you the images you seek.  I suggest considering a Canon MP-E 65mm macro with an adapter, which would give you magnifications up to 5:1.  You can rent the lens and a Metabones IV adapter from Lens Rentals for just over $100/week if you don’t intend to keep the kit.

Yes the size is the concern.  Of the lenses mentioned does anyone have negative experiences with them. Is there any advantage of the 25mm 5:1 over say the 100 2:1 with an extender?

The 100mm Voigtlander looks like a great lens, but for the money how much better is it over Sony's 90mm?  I ask because the Sony's would have autofocus and that could be helpful if we need to create any video clips.

Thanks again for the help.

I like it because it is the longest native E-mount macro and I tend to not use AF for macro.  It also has a major advantage over any Laowa offering in that it is electronically coupled so you get the right EXIF data in the files rather than no lens data at all in the file.  I mentioned it since you are thinking of Laowa lenses which are only manual focus.  If AF is a requirement or a strong desire then I would get the Sony.  I don't know which Sony camera you are using but if it's an a7R4, you can shoot it in APS-C mode, still get 26mp and effectively have 1.5x magnification relative to full frame.

SantaFeJoe wrote:

sdaconsulting wrote:.......Trying to get close enough to live bees with 90mm or even 150mm is going to be an exercise in enormous frustration....

Your bees must be very different from the ones around here. I used to use a 60mm macro with no problems. I got a 200 macro and it gave me more working distance. Now I use the phone camera with no problems on live, active bees in the warmth of the day when they are most busy, and in the early morning when they are not. I never move aggressively or swat at them and they leave me alone. 

Joe
Here’s another phone image:

That's a bumblebee, they take a lot longer at each flower than honeybees do. We have honeybee hives and I'm guessing he is trying to photograph the Varroa Destructor mites for some kind of data collection / analysis. He really will want a longer lens than 90-150mm for that purpose. The issue certainly isn't getting stung (bees don't do that while foraging unless you grab them in your hand), it is trying to chase fast-moving bees while getting images with sufficient depth of field and in focus in the right place to see the mites.

If the bees are captive instead of flying freely outdoors, then using a shorter lens becomes more feasible.

Matthew said:That's a bumblebee, they take a lot longer at each flower than honeybees do.

They’re all the same, IMO. Another phone image: If you can do it with a phone, a short lens is not a problem.
Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Matthew said:That's a bumblebee, they take a lot longer at each flower than honeybees do.

They’re all the same, IMO. Another phone image:

If you can do it with a phone, a short lens is not a problem.
Joe

I tend to agree with Joe. If the project doesn't really need high quality images, using a phone is an option. One concern is the phone can be blocking some of the light when a closer shot is needed. If the project needs 1:1 images of the mite itself, then a longer focal length macro lens should be better. When I photo bees I don't find chasing the bees necessary cuz there's usually quite a few of them around and so I just pick another bee if the first one flies away. AF lenses certainly are better.

1:1 of the mites would be no more magnification than 1:1 of the bee, i.e. life size on the sensor.  The suggestions of phone cameras isn't going to cut it to get images of the mites themselves.

I have been taking close-up shots of honey bees gathering pollen from poppies using the Sony 100-400 telephoto with 1.4x teleconverter. This combo works great, with an APSC body. I used a6500. As EJ suggested, a high-res full-frame body (esp A7R IV) would also work well with a crop.

I can see facial close ups, pollen sacs, and individual pollen grains at this magnification. Autofocus works well, shots are sharp, and I get much better working distance.

The added working distance helps to lessen any disruption of bee behavior. I had great difficulty with shorter lenses as the bees react to my moving body.

I think autofocus is pretty important as honey bees usually move long before you have time to manually focus on the bee. They do not stay long on each blossom. Manual pre-focusing and waiting for the bee to arrive at a specific nearby blossom might work.

Hi,

Is the goal to photograph the bees and then count the number of mites? Or is this just to document examples of the mites? If the former then you would need to be systematic about your set-up. I would suggest finding a dead bee and work on set-up that gives you the appropriate magnification. At close distances I find autofocus to be less useful, as it only focuses where you have the focus point and to get that right you need to keep moving that point. Unless the camera has the option for touchpad autofocus, I think manual focus is a better option when combined with focus peaking. I'm not familiar with the Sony system but presumably you can set that up focus peaking (brightness/color, etc.) to make it practical in the field. Once you have the right focus distance/magnification, you slowly move it towards your subject and take photos as needed. The other concern is lighting, using natural light is best but flash would give you more control over depth of field and ISO. At 1x magnification or higher you are getting pretty close to your subject and need to think about more specialized lighting (e.g. ring/twin flash) which can get expensive.

I've been taking photos of moths, mainly the micro variety, for the last few years (https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/sig ... ls/1184885, https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/sig ... ls/1189423) with varying degrees of success. These moths can be as small as your mites but note that I'm trying to fill the frame as they can only be identified from a photograph or by being collected which I don't do. It took me a while to find something that works consistently in the field. I use a Canon M series camera with Canon's MP-E 65mm and recently started using Venus Optics's Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X. Lighting is provided by Canon's MR-14EX II. Not sure how appropriate this is to your needs but once I find a moth, I pre-focus based on its size and then try to fill the frame. Most are fairly co-operative plus none of them can sting! I can vouch for either lens, but as I get close to my subjects you probably should look at lenses with longer focal length (90mm+). Your autofocus options are limited to Sony's 90mm and new Tokina 100mm macro. There is plenty of options if you are happy with manual focus macro lenses +/- adapters. Alternatively, if you have the appetite, you could experiment with extension tubes and a medium telephoto, finding a combo that gives you an acceptable magnification range.

Cheers,

Jim

archfotos wrote:I need to photograph some parasites on honey bees and am looking to either buy or rent a macro lens.  These are the lenses I'm looking at:

Venus Optics Laowa 25mm 5:1 magnification
Minimum focus distance is 7”

Venus Optics Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra Macro  2:1
minimum focusing distance of 9.7

Mitakon Zhongyi Creator 85mm f/2.8 1-5x Super Macro 5:1
Horrible reviews on sharpness

Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens

Vello EXT-SFED2 Auto Focus Extension Tubes

I'm hoping someone can give some insights for this (unpaid) project for a research paper.  Again I'll be working with live bees, photographing a parasite no bigger than one eighth of an inch using Sony full frame.  I am open to other mounts with an adapter.

Any insights and advice would be very welcome.

thanks,

I think the Mitakon reviews were based on the first version. They had a coatings issue initially and they recalled them. It was corrected and the new version is dramatically better. Pretty bad that they released and then immediately recalled it to fix it, but at least they reacted quickly.

It really depends on what magnification you are trying to achieve.  at 1x you can expect AF will work OK, but as you go up in magnification AF becomes less reliable.  For example the Canon 180mm macro with 1.4x , the AF only works above about 1/3 life size.

The other consideration is that all of these high magnification lenses focus very close the MP-E lens for example focuses with 100mm working distance at 1x and about 40mm from the front element at 5x.  You quote some min focus distances with the lenses - this is not working distance it is distance from the sensor to subject.  Working distance is less than min focus distance by the length of the lens plus flange distance of the camera.

Because they focus so close lighting is a major issue you need either a diffused flash on an arm or twin light that mounts to the lens.  

The learning curve for using 2x and greater is steep as well, ideally you set the magnification on the MP-E lens and move the whole rig back and forth to achieve focus, I use a focus rail for that.  Depth of field is razor thin - at 1.0x and f16 you have 2.2mm depth of field.  at 3.0 x you have 0.49mm at f16.

This is a long legged fly which is about 6-7mm long taken at about 2.5x with and MP-E lens and Macro twin lite.:
click on image for full size.  there is about 50mm working distance from the fly and DFO about 0.5mm in round numbers.

E.J. Peiker wrote:My favorite macro lens for Sony FE is the Voigtlander - it's a little longer in focal length so a bit more working distance and absolutely superb IQ.

Focus ring movement - what is the factory-spec to look for (with any brand) that reveals the amount "spin" required when doing focus-layer shooting? It seems to be proprietary information with every mfg. (along with "does a lens extend outward, or maintains the same length?")
 
To wit: I use a Canon 180mm macro and mount convertor to a Sony a7RIII. The ring movement frame -to- frame for focus-layer images is annoyingly - tiny - approximately 1/32" inch. Net result: difficult to maintain uniform focus spacing.

Frankly, I prefer using the Zeiss Batis 85mm or 135mm with a mount spacer. It's focus-ring movement (in manual mode) is a delight to use, approximately 3/8" frame-to-frame, relatively easy to maintain consistent spacing.

One of the problems with the Canon 180 is that it only resolves up to about a 20mp sensor - it is one of the oldest lenses in the Canon line-up.  So in today's world of 40 to 60mp, it isn't a good choice anymore.  The Voigtlander I mentioned is a superb lens all the way around.  It's focus is sublimely smooth and very precise with a relatively large throw making it super easy for ultra-precise manual focus.  It is about 330 degrees from 1:1 to infinity.  Note this lens is made on the same line as the high end Zeiss lenses at the Cosina factory in Japan and it feels just like using one.  Easily the best macro lens on the market for Sony as long as you do not need AF.  Realize that it will also be stabilized on these cameras due to the IBIS and it is chipped so that the camera knows what lens it is using and uses the proper IBIS movements for the focal length as well as giving you the correct EXIF data. I can't recommend it highly enough for macro photographers, as long as no AF is OK.

ChrisRoss wrote:It really depends on what magnification you are trying to achieve.  at 1x you can expect AF will work OK, but as you go up in magnification AF becomes less reliable.  For example the Canon 180mm macro with 1.4x , the AF only works above about 1/3 life size.

The other consideration is that all of these high magnification lenses focus very close the MP-E lens for example focuses with 100mm working distance at 1x and about 40mm from the front element at 5x.  You quote some min focus distances with the lenses - this is not working distance it is distance from the sensor to subject.  Working distance is less than min focus distance by the length of the lens plus flange distance of the camera.

Because they focus so close lighting is a major issue you need either a diffused flash on an arm or twin light that mounts to the lens.  

The learning curve for using 2x and greater is steep as well, ideally you set the magnification on the MP-E lens and move the whole rig back and forth to achieve focus, I use a focus rail for that.  Depth of field is razor thin - at 1.0x and f16 you have 2.2mm depth of field.  at 3.0 x you have 0.49mm at f16.

This is a long legged fly which is about 6-7mm long taken at about 2.5x with and MP-E lens and Macro twin lite.:

click on image for full size.  there is about 50mm working distance from the fly and DFO about 0.5mm in round numbers.

The Mitakon gives a quite generous working distance compared to similar products.

I have experience with the Sigma 150mm macro (the original non-IS version). I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter and the Sigma Canon-to-FE mount converter. This 210mm combination greatly exceeded my expectations and provides useful but slow autofocus. Even when used on an APSC body (e.g. A6500), images are quite sharp.