50 or 100 macro for S35?

[filmguy123]

Debating Zeus milvus 50 or 100 macro

I know 100 is generally preferred for FF but with a 50 on S5... which is the better compromise and why?

[morgan_moore]

70mm

Ive had a 55 for years then got thrown a 100 on a job.. felt too long and a mother to focus.

But then I probably only think this because I have had a 55 for years.

Seriously my 70 on my 35-70(macro) is so often 'right'

Also I bought a 200mm macro.

Sometimes standing back can be useful aka having the lens 10cm away from the subject like with the 55 can be problematic.. like shadows of the camera over the subject.

So as owner of a 55, 70 and 200 Id say probably 100.

.. or of course get 55,70,100,200

S

[filmguy123]

Thanks Morgan. So to clarify, the 100 macro (FF) that is often preferred you are echoing here - a 70 on S5 comes out to just over 100 on FF equiv.

Thus, you recommend as close to that as possible, but, if I have to choose between cutting it short with a 50 (approx 75 FF equiv) or going longer with a 100 (150 FF equiv), better to go longer.

Re: going with a 70, I'd prefer to stay matched in the Milvus range with the rest of the set.

[morgan_moore]

Forget the Crop FOV thing.

The lens I found a bit long was a 100mm PL cine lens on an FS7 - no crop factors or suchlike.

(but yep I guess that looks a bit like 140mm on Vista in terms of magnification)

I guess 100mm is an OK compromise

Short lenses cast shadows, long lenses hard to use (focus stability) so 100mm is probably a good compromise.

I think with a 50 you will jam yourself into trouble if you want to do real macro.. the camera gets so close.

[morgan_moore]

Four your amusement here is my BMC doing a close up of a lathe bit with a 55micro.. you see the camera is close https://twitter.com/sammorganmoore/s...19227820314624

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Just like shooting non-macro, you need to ask yourself about how you'd like the compression to look. I can shoot a person with a 50mm and I can shoot a person with a 100mm.... I can get the same composition but it will have different perspective, compression, distortion etc.

Same with macro lenses. If you have macro lenses that can do roughly the same magnification (1:2, etc) but one is 50mm, one is 100mm and another is 150mm.... you'll have to decide on the lens on the same merits as in the pervious example.

For me, it would depend. Sometimes if needing to get very very tight, a wider macro lens can force you to get too close to the subject, causing issues with lighting. I usually play it safe and go with a 100mm, because sometimes other things can prevent you from being able to get physically closer, such as table edges, the dolly or dolly track, etc.

But if you are not hindered by how close you can get or lighting, I can see how a wider macro lens will give a different result than the same composition on say a 150mm macro lens.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

For instance here is a Cooke 40mm that I can focus to 7.63" with Duclos Macro Tube. (CF is normally 16")!

ad38754c-9049-4f88-8032-0cf9bf170b96.jpg

For fun, I wanted to see what close focus looked like.... Thank god it's a A7S! Had to be at a very high ISO to let enough light slip in through the cracks on the side!

You can see from this example how a 200mm lens could be 38" away from subject and get the same frame. Preferable in this instance.

[Mitch Gross]

I generally prefer a 100mm macro. The biggest issue for me with wider lenses is getting the camera back far enough to get light in there, plus often I would find myself shooting reflective objects (like an eye) and the camera or lens was far too visible in the shot. I used to use little dentist mirrors on armatures so that I could direct light to the proper parts of the subject without getting camera shadows. Tried using the Zeiss Compact Prime 50mm Makro once and it really had me scratching my head with the design. It has a huge 114mm front housing that extends way far forward so the lens elements can travel within the barrel, but this means that the thing was always in the way of any lighting. Drove me nuts.

Tokina actually makes a nice 100mm macro in PL mount (and I think other mounts as well) and it's very reasonable priced at $2500. I like that lens a lot.

[Greg_E]

Assuming that you are going to have a 50mm and 100mm lens in your kit, why not get both in Macro?

[Mitch Gross]

Assuming that you are going to have a 50mm and 100mm lens in your kit, why not get both in Macro?

When used on the long end, often macros are not the best lenses for everyday work. They tend to have slower apertures and all the focus marks will be squeezed together on the longer end.