p.1 #1 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
I'm new to macro photography. I've enjoyed some photos of insects and flowers I've taken with Sony Sony A7RV using 70-200 F4 with 1.4 TC, but as I get into it more and read about get "real" 1:1 on the sensor I wonder -
is there any advantage to getting a "real" macro - something like the 90 mm Sony 2.8 G? I imagine a larger aperture helps in low light & bokeh, but zooming in with the 70-200 gives me pretty nice bokeh.
I see using a 2x TC with the 70-200 F4 gives "real" 1:1 macro, but when I borrowed a 2x TC I found it to be much softer than the 1.4
p.1 #2 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
Confused about what 1:1 means? It's means the size of the subject is represented in actual size in your photograph. So, if you found a (roughly) 36x24mm stamp, you could fill the frame with it. Or are confused about how necessary it is? I rarely use 1:1 when I'm bug hunting. Most of the little suckers move way too fast for that. I do like having 1:1 (or closer) when I'm out shooting more stationary things like wildflowers or for tabletop.
The 90's a good macro, but it is slow. If you're interested in that, I'd either look at the Sigma 105/2.8 or hang on for a bit and see if Sony isn't bringing a faster focuser to market. Or you could look at one of the many excellent manual focusers. Regardless, I wouldn't let go of the 70-200GII for insects. I use the full range when I'm chasing butterflies and the like and wouldn't give it up. Just switch your rV to crop mode if you can't get close enough.
p.1 #3 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
I have always had a dedicated macro lens in the tele range (90mm-105mm) but I found myself increasingly lack interest in using it for photographing insects. One main reason is I am interest in the kind of insect photography that I would call portrait style or studio style where the background is almost totally obliterated. Of course I understand its merits and I appreciate the amazing macro shots with great details of the insect made visible in that style. However, I am inclined towards another kind of insect photography. I am particularly interested in environmental insect photography where the insect is shown in its natural environment. For this reason I have got a Laowa 24mm macro lens (Probe / Periprobe). I really like the wide angle perspective this lens provides.
The other hardware I have recently started using is a tele zoom lens together with a quality close-up lens. My tele zoom lens is Sigma 100-400mm lens and I started using the Nisi close-up lens attachment with it (though I have now switched to Canon 500D close-up lens). This combination provides almost 1:1 magnification at 300mm though I mostly stay at 200mm which provides about 0.6 magnification ratio.
I have to explain my other main reason for preferring these solutions over a standard macro lens (in the 50mm-110mm range) that is both these solutions are less intimidating to a live insect than the standard solution. My sigma + Canon closeup filter provides me with about 50cm of working distance at 200mm-300mm focal range and a magnification ratio of 0.6 to1! No macro lens come remotely close and this is crucial for flying insects like butterflies, etc. Insects may not notice my presence if I approach them cautiously and when I am standing away from them. With a typical macro lens, the end of the lens would about 10-15cm away from the insect. I think there's no contest here and my combo wins when it comes to the working distance. Of course, I would loose a bit in the sharpness department but I am willing to make the trade for the possibility to capture the shot.
With the Laowa lens, the end of the tube needs to be very close to the subject at about 2-5cm. However, the tube diameter is quite small and many insects do not see the tube as a threat. Moreover, since the tube is long, so the camera and I are quite far away from the insect so less chance of intimidating the subject.
My main difficulties which still persist as of now are focusing and stabilization.
So personally I no longer worry myself about 1:1 magnification even though both systems of hardware I use provide me with it (Laowa offers 2:1). I may personally suggest you start exploring your current equipment so that gradually, you also discover your style along the way and the limitation of your current setup. There are always compromises whichever means you opt for.
p.1 #4 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
By the way. Sony is about to release a 100mm macro lens though it may turn out to be super expensive. Following my first message, I do not currently see this new lens offering me a better solution than my current setups. Generally speaking unless, its AF at macro level turns out to be incredibly amazing, I don't see it brings any advantage to the table even for those who use macro lenses in that range.
p.1 #7 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
Dedicated macro lenses like the Sony 90mm and Sigma 105mm often have less distortion at the minimum focus distance compared with sort-of-macro lenses like the 70-200 f4. They also have longer manual focus throws so it is easier to make very fine adjustments. Obviously, you're also getting much faster apertures with the dedicated f/2.8 lenses compared to f/8 once you've added the 2x TC to the f/4 lens.
I use the 70-200 f4 macro most of the time because I rarely go all the way to 1:1. But it's handy to have that option if needed. If you really want to do most of your work at 1:1, a dedicated macro lens does have advantages.
p.1 #8 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
True macros are optically designed for close focus. That means low distortion, flat field, high MTF, and low lateral CA. The better macros will have floating elements to optimize the optical performance as focus distance changes from closest to farther away. A 70-200 zoom may or may not be adequate for you, but a true macro is much better the farther away from center.
Unfortunately there is currently a large gap with no new OEM macros over about 105mm lately. I do adapt an older Sigma 150/2.8 EF mount to Sony MC-11. There are several other SLR mount lenses that can be adapted if you want reach for small critters.
p.1 #11 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
By the way, Laowa has just released a 180mm f/4.5 1.5x macro lens and it's quite inexpensive. It doesn't support AF at close-up range though. Other than that, it is quite preferable to me: much less expensive than the Sony 70-200mm g macro lens and reaches a higher magnification scale plus, it's not zoom.
Sep 27, 2025 at 04:40 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #12 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
sierrabob wrote:
I'm new to macro photography. I've enjoyed some photos of insects and flowers I've taken with Sony Sony A7RV using 70-200 F4 with 1.4 TC, but as I get into it more and read about get "real" 1:1 on the sensor I wonder -
is there any advantage to getting a "real" macro - something like the 90 mm Sony 2.8 G? I imagine a larger aperture helps in low light & bokeh, but zooming in with the 70-200 gives me pretty nice bokeh.
I see using a 2x TC with the 70-200 F4 gives "real" 1:1 macro, but when I borrowed a 2x TC I found it to be much softer than the 1.4
I'm a bit confused about the whole "1:1" thing......Show more →
I've used macro lenses and tele zooms up close for years dating back to film, mostly I use the 1:1 macro lens to get closer (not that you can't get 1:1 using attachments) and the tele zooms can be handy if you dont need to get as close.
The 70-200/4 + 2x doesn't sound like it would work very well. Its f/8 at max aperture and you'll probably need to stop down to clean up performance leaving you at f/11-16 or so. Ive had good luck using tubes on a 70-210/4, and a 1.4 might only need f/8 effective aperture might be ok.
Tubes, diopter etc have their place but I've mostly used either tele zooms especially if I dont need/want to get that close, or a macro lens if I do. A set of tubes can cost as much as a macro lens, or close, so you might look at a Canon EF to Sony adapter. Canon EF macros aren't necessarily that expensive and I dont think the EF-Sony adapters are either
p.1 #13 · for macro, Sony 70-200 F4 vs a "real" macro?
The advantage of higher magnification macro lenses (1:2, 1:1, or the higher magnification versions) is that they are optically designed to perform well or best at those magnifications. They are often witheringly sharp, even at MFD. Any other route to that sort of magnification results in optical compromises - with the possible exception of reversing lenses … but that results in really restricted working distances.
I have owned about as many macro lenses over the years as I have owned fast 50s, which is to say, a lot of macro lenses. If you want to shoot moving subjects, like bugs, a good macro lens is really helpful. If you seek the combination of really sharp subjects and really creamy bokeh, a macro lens is helpful. For the latter, if you are not trying to get high magnification, then zooms like the one you mentioned or the 100-400 GM do pretty well. Better still are fast primes, like the 50/1.2 or 135 GMs. But…if you also want high magnification, then a macro lens really helps.
If you are not worried about insects or moving subjects, then there is a whole world of stellar manual focus (or slower AF) lenses out there. I have a Leica 100/2.8 APO that is sublime but requires patience, as the focus throw is something like 720 degrees between 2ft and 6” focal distances. Even with that stellar lens in my cabinet, honestly, I shoot most of my closeup images with a fast 50 and either a diopter or a short tube. My favorite for those are:
I use the 135 GM for “flower portraits,” where a large flower fills the frame. If I shot bugs, rather than static subjects, I’d likely snatch that new Sony macro immediately. The 90 or the Sigma would also be good options.
Maybe, turning your question on its head, is there a shot you couldn’t get with the lens you already own? If you can’t make a list quickly, then you probably don’t need a macro lens.
