16 hours ago, OneYellowTang said:

Actually, it is absolutely a dog, and most people who have dived with it agree (even in this thread).

The original post asked about the 50mm macro, the feedback was that the lens is not worth the $. My suggestion was to get the new 100mm, it seems to be much better than the 90mm (which is better than the 50mm).

The fact that you like the 50mm means just that, you are one of very few that like the 50mm for macro (and it's unlikely you've ever tried to shoot it for blackwater).

Why would you shoot with a macro lens that struggles with AF for small subjects?

And...first camera was a Nikonos III, new.

That's your opinion. I don't share any of it, just as you don't share mine.

And FYI, no need to mis-quote me. I didn't say the 50 struggles with ALL small subjects. I said some, eg. thin ones. With other small subjects it is usually bang on, straight away, esp with a focus light in dark conditions. No different to other macro lenses in that regard.

Best if we agree to disagree.

Still on semantics? First camera Nikonos I (actually it wasn't called a "I", just Nikonos...). I still have it.

My Nikonos III came much later...

5 hours ago, dentrock said:

That's your opinion. I don't share any of it, just as you don't share mine.

And FYI, no need to mis-quote me. I didn't say the 50 struggles with ALL small subjects. I said some, eg. thin ones. With other small subjects it is usually bang on, straight away, esp with a focus light in dark conditions. No different to other macro lenses in that regard.

Best if we agree to disagree.

Still on semantics? First camera Nikonos I (actually it wasn't called a "I", just Nikonos...). I still have it.

My Nikonos III came much later...

To be fair, I didn't misquote you - I never suggested you said "ALL small subjects", however you clearly misquoted what I wrote.

The point is still the some - the 50mm lens is a dog, it struggles to focus on small subjects in situations that other lens do not.

I have the opportunity to dive with an A7RV, a D850, a Z8, as well as an Oly on a regular basis in our family. The 50mm lens on a Sony is the poorest of any of the typical macro lenses used across any of these. This isn't just opinion, this is from experience.

The 100mm looks to be a much better macro lens for Sony shooters. Alex suggested this is true, other shooters who have access to the lens are saying the same. Feel free to stay in the past, that's completely your choice.

What could possibly be your motivation for suggesting somebody else follow you down this path?

Hi,

I've been using the Sony A7CII since March 2024 and have photographed a little over 80 dives with it since then. Before that, I used Sony A7II and A7III series cameras, as well as RX100 models.

With the A7CII, I also changed my wide-angle setup and now use the 28-60mm lens in combination with a Nauticam WWL-1. Previously, I used the 16-35mm f/4 with a 180mm dome port. The combination of the 26-60mm and the WWL-1 works perfectly for me and is much easier to transport than the setup with the large dome. I use the 28-60mm almost exclusively for underwater photography.

Of course, the 28-60mm can also be used for macro photography to a certain extent if combined with a suitable close-up lens. I've only tried this myself with a Weefine WFL05S so far, but I wasn't really happy with it.

If I'm going to do macro, I want proper macro, and for that I use the tried-and-tested Sony FE 90mm F2.8, sometimes supplemented with the Nauticam MFO-1. (I should do a test with the 28-60mm with the MFO-1 to see if that would be a viable combination.)

If I were currently considering buying a setup, I'd probably go for the new 100mm macro if I had the money. If you don't want to spend that much, now's a great time to get the 90mm, as there are plenty of good used ones available.

I would advise against using the same lens as on land for wide-angle photography. As I said, the 28-60mm is so light that it doesn't add any weight when traveling, regardless of whether you're also bringing another wide-angle lens for land-based photography.

If I were you, I'd advise against using the same lens for wide-angle shots as you do on land.

I got my underwater housing from Nauticam. If I didn't already have ports and an underwater setup with interchangeable lenses, I would definitely take a look at the AOI housing for the A7CII / A7CR. I've handled the housing twice already, and I think the price-performance ratio of the package is absolutely fantastic, especially since it includes so many accessories like a flash trigger, vacuum valve, etc.

With that in mind, best of luck with your decision!

Tino

15 hours ago, OneYellowTang said:

The 100mm looks to be a much better macro lens for Sony shooters. Alex suggested this is true, other shooters who have access to the lens are saying the same. Feel free to stay in the past, that's completely your choice.

What could possibly be your motivation for suggesting somebody else follow you down this path?

The 90 or 100 may be better for pure macro, but they certainly are not better as general purpose lenses. As a fish nerd I confirm the 50 is better for that, plus it is macro capable. That is the point!

It is also the only macro option with AF in this focal length for Sony.

I am happy to trade some AF issues for the incredible sharpness and detail I get right across the frame, in my particular application with the dome. It is also light weight and good for the survey work I do, which requires you to use a clip board and quickly take photos of any mobile invert or fish you can't immediately identify, for ID later on.

Another advantage of this setup is I can exchange the 50 for any of: Tamron 35, Sigma 24 and 17, with no need to change the port or extension. I don't use it with a flat port, and the dome rules out water contact optics.

It is of no interest to me whether anyone else takes the same approach, but I suggest if anyone is interested, there are plenty of used examples out there (although new is cheap when on special), so it's easy to try out, and move on if you don't like the results. And many members will have enough ports and accessories to do this without further expense.

Anyway, enough of this. To be blunt, if you can't get some good results with this lens, it is not the lens' fault!