The Macro lens smackdown. So which is the best Macro lens 50mm or 90mm? Good question. I honestly think the answer is whatever you have on your camera.
But there are some differences. There are budgets, and weights to consider as well. Let’s have a quick comparison between the two.
50mm macro lens
When I first changed from Nikon to Sony I didn’t have a macro at all and I missed it so much. But was completely torn on which focal length to get. So I borrowed a friend’s Sony 50mm macro lens and instantly fell in love with it. It is smaller, cheaper and can get in close and works well in tight compact shooting spaces. It is fabulous for food and still life photography too. There is more blur than bokeh on the 50mm. That was fine by me.
Pros: Cheaper, lightweight and can get in super close and is terrific for tight spaces
Cons: Perhaps a little too close when working with insects. Has more blur than creamy bokeh of the 90mm
90mm macro lens
I wrote a little while ago that the 50mm macro lens is my go-to for food and still life photography. And it was to a certain point. During the continued lockdowns, locally, I managed to find a great deal on a Sony 90mm macro lens. Oh my, I had totally forgotten the look of an image captured with the 90mm. The bokeh, the soft creaminess.
Pros: The beautiful bokeh, is so dreamy. Ideal focal length for working with insects (especially ones that sting). Fantastic for any close-up work; food, flowers, insects, product or still life.
Cons: Cost and weight are the two biggest issues. Not the heaviest lens I own, but up there. I am sure there will possibly be cheaper and lighter macro on the market soon, if not already, but this Sony 90mm is divine.
The macro weighs supreme
You may think I am remiss in not mentioning anything larger than 90mm. Perhaps I am, but I have not used any larger lenses. I am sure that they have their pros and cons as well. Mostly the con of cost and weight.
I must confess that since I bought the 90mm, the 50mm has rarely been back on my camera. I adore the 90mm in the studio, but particularly out in the field. It is sharp, fast and a dream to use.
My 50mm got me by just fine for several years. The initial cost-saving allowed me to buy other items I needed at the time. I never regretted buying the 50mm, but now I do have a 90mm I doubt I will be turning back. So I guess in the long run I favor the 90mm over the 50mm, but if cost is an issue, I doubt you will regret the 50mm. I didn’t.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I’d love to know what you prefer in regards to a dedicated macro lens?
I have a 100mm manual focus macro that’s given me many great shots in my yard and garden. IMHO something like 50mm just forces you too close to the subject. You end up blocking the light.
Thanks Jim, another valid point about the 50mm. While I found it was perfectly fine in the studio, it does get way too close, especially with biting and stinging insects! And yes it often needs a help with additional light.
I am Sony ,but come from Nikon and Nikon 200mm f4 is the best over lens and I hate Nikkot 105mm f2.8G
I adore my Tamron 300mm its a fav too. What is about the Nikkor 105mm you hate?
As with any lens, it depends on what you intend to use it for. My favorite is a 35mm (52mm equiv.) Pentax lens to copy prints for restoration. The shorter focal length allows for copying a wide range of print sizes when mounted on a copy stand. Two lights at 45 degrees on a flat subject that doesn’t move, bite or sting is just perfect. It is a pretty compact walk around lens as well and has excellent bokeh at f2.8-f4.
Yes a 50mm is pretty good for stationary objects, food, product etc…it does get a bit close to stinging insects for my liking lol :-)