1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

70-200 f4 @90 mm vs 90mm macro at f4

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by adwb, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. adwb

    adwb TalkEmount Regular

    127
    Sep 30, 2015
    Bristol UK
    Alistair
    There is so little difference in the price I am wondering if instead of the 90 macro I should get the 70-200 f4 ?
    In reality I would use genuine macro very occasionally but more often for closeups of flowers and so on, so in that case I suspect the 79-200 would suffice and be more useful, I was wondering at 90 mm f4 how the 70-200 compares to the 90mm at f4 on the same subject and distance, re resolution and background blur, separation and whatnot?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2016
  2. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    I can't provide any useful information regarding comparison between the two lenses since I don't own or ever used the 90 f/2.8 Macro, but while I love my FE 70-200 f4, at 1,5m minimum focus distance, its not a macro or even close-up lens by any means...

    From what I've read, the 90mm is one if not the sharpest FE lens!
     
  3. nidza

    nidza TalkEmount Regular

    120
    Nov 1, 2013
    Serbia
    I suppose on 70-200 you can fit extension tube to reduce minimal focal distance.

    Worth to be investigated how it works, if you aren't especially macro shooter. In latter case it makes sense have dedicated equipment, not improvisation.
     
  4. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Extension tubes generally don't work well with zoom lenses. I think a high-quality close-up lens is a better idea, although getting one with 72mm thread might be difficult.
     
  5. adwb

    adwb TalkEmount Regular

    127
    Sep 30, 2015
    Bristol UK
    Alistair
    funnily enough I have a sigma 72mm thread close up lens which I bought for a long since sold Sigma 24-300 pentax fit lens

    I never used it and only remember I have it because
    of your post
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2016
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Let us know how you get on with it!
     
  7. adwb

    adwb TalkEmount Regular

    127
    Sep 30, 2015
    Bristol UK
    Alistair
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jefenator

    Jefenator TalkEmount Top Veteran

    876
    Nov 23, 2012
    Oregon, USA
    Jeff
    IME the FE90 is already pretty impressive, wide open. Stopped down one stop, it's going to be a monster. And I for one really love the way it does subject isolation. (YMMV...)
    The 70-200 only lets you get up to 1:7.7 but I suspect that's at 200mm. So at 90mm I'm not sure how close you're going to be able to get, even after adding on that close-up element. (Of course, you could go ahead and zoom in and take advantage of that greater working distance.)
    Seems to me like a pretty clear case of telephoto reach versus close-up ability.
    For the more secondary, infrequent application, perhaps an adapted legacy lens might hold you over? (I use an old Minolta 135/2.8 for the occasional telephoto jaunt. In your case, perhaps a legacy macro might be a good and inexpensive way to cover those flower close-ups?)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    916
    Aug 22, 2012
    Which is more inconvenient for you: Cropping in pp, or lugging a bulky lens around? :p

    (that is literally how I decided on the 90 macro)
     
  10. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Are they really that much different in size? (131mm vs 175mm lenght) ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2016
  11. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    The 90mm macro imo is so crazy good. I wouldn't compromise with anything else if macro / portrait was the direction I was heading

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
     
  12. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    916
    Aug 22, 2012
    Good enough difference for me :p

    90 vs 70200.

    (Edit: On a serious note, this and the 16-35 are the two biggest lenses I own, and they're very similar in size - which makes carrying the two together a lot easier (because they fit in a similar sized two-lens bag) ... the 70-200 would require a different bag altogether)
     
    • Useful Useful x 1