|
Search this group's discussions
|
Macro lenses
|
Hi all,
I'm very interested in buy a Tamron len
"Super Wide Angle 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens"
Anyone has tested this one?
What's your opinion about macro len?
Thanks
Posted at 7:39AM, 22 July 2006 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
My opinion is that if you really want to do macro photography, you should consider a dedicated macro lens that goes all the way to 1:1. Tamorn's 90mm is highly regarded and the Sigma 150, which I have, is just superb. Both of these have wider aperture than most zooms (f/2.8), which allows the use of a teleconverter if you want to go longer on occasion.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have it; my copy is quite good. It's not a substitute for a good macro lens, but it makes a good lens for traveling. It's on the slowish side, so I recommend a monopod or tripod if you want to do much macro/closeup work with it
These are samples of shots taken with this lens,, though, unfortunately, all handheld so a little camera shake is evident:
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
doug_r edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
if you have money to spare, get a good prime macro just as MerlinsMan say. but if you have budget constraint, then invest on a good tripod instead and get that tamron.
*55mm macro is superbly underrated nowday...
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Nothing really compares to a true macro lens. I have the Canon 60mm macro and the Canon 100mm macro lens. Both are 1:1 and f/2.8 and both produce outstanding images. However, I'm consistently blown away by what the Tamron 90mm can do for less money.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Super Wide Angle 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens" is not a macro lens, they use the word for marketing only because it can focus relatively close. There are very few true macro lenses that can zoom (and they are not cheap). If you want a macro lens then you will need to nook at a fixed focal length like 50mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 150mm 180mm or 200mm macro lenses. But like all good equipment you only get what you pay for. It all depends on how close you ant to come to your subject as to which lens you chose. If you shoot flowers inside in a controlled environment then a any thing from 50-105mm should be fine. If you want to chase insects in your back garden then you will need something a little longer, if it is a bug that you cant get very close to then you will need the longer macro lenses. The advantage of a 90,100 or 100mm lens is it doubles as a nice portrait lens.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Get a dedicated Macro lense. if you Reallllllly want to do Macro photography.
look for the little 1:1
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Try out the Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250 macro adaptors. Around about $45 last time I checked:
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Agree with Coyote on this one
I have the Canon EFS 60mm Macro and it is far and away my favourite lens - it is the lens that pretty much lives on my EOS300D - it gets used for pretty much everything i shoot in normal daytime conditions - my only gripe is that it wont fit on my EOS650 film camera
If only I loved my EFS 10-22 as much...
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Get a Zeiss Luminar, a Micro Nikkor 55mm P 3.5 non-Ai or the humble Nikkor 35mm f2 non-Ai and any wide angle would do! And the rest is up to your imagination...
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the nikon af-s vr micro-nikkor 105mm f/2.8 g if-ed lens this one is great,and made great and beautifal pictures
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Can I use my 35mm-80mm lens for macro photography?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hey guys, can anybody tell me pls how to directly post pix here just like what walwyn did? muchas gracia
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In your image page,
Goto All Sizes then select small.
Copy & paste the code in the comment box.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Joanne - Yes, just get some extention tubes. You can calculate the magnification factor depending on tube length and focal length.
Should give you a good practical working distance too.
The focusing is done by adjusting the zoom control.
I use Nikon's 60mm & 105mm micro's with a 2x TC & 65mm (3 combined) extention tubes.
Another Fantastic lens is the SIGMA 24mm Macro - Canine Gonads of a lens too!!!
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Bob Whorton edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
@ Tolz:
Questions on posting photos to groups and threads are answered in the Flickr FAQ on this page.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
First thing, if you want want to experience some real macros then buy primse (stay away from zooms for macros).
I currently have the following macro lens:
1. 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor
2. 55mm f/2.8 MF Micro Nikkor
3. 105mm f/2.8 MF Micro Nikkor
4. 105mm f/2.8 MF Lester Dine (Kiron made)
Apart from the 105mm f/2.8 the other three are excellent lens. The Lester Dine/Kiron is the best maco lens I've ever used. It goes 1:1 without extention tubes and gives you a good working distance as compared to the 55/60mm focal length. The only caveat is that my last 3 lenses don't meter on my Nikon D50.
If you want metering and AF ( which you will not use for macro anyway) then get Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di is an excellent macro lens if you want autofocus.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Do you have a link for #4 please?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My wife has this lens on her camera (the Tamron 28-300 Macro the original poster inquired about). It does not do 1:1 Macro, so if that is what you are looking for, a standard macro, like a 105MM or something like that is best. However, when you are dealing with things that move like Dragon Flies, Butterflies, etc. The Zoom gives you more flexibility.
The short answer is that it is a good macro lens that should complement a standard macro lens.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
FUJIBOB,
I got mine from EBay.
LebronPhoto I don't know which lens your wife has. But the Lester Dine 105mm macro that I've goes 1:1 with the extn. tubes. I'll post some pictures today evening.
If you want to read more, please read the following threads. There are some excellent samples as well as 100% crops of those samples. Decide for yourself and tell me what you think. BTW, most of the people writing on these threads are macro experts, especially Arnab.
I still don't think zooms can come anywhere near primes when it comes to macro shots. BTW almost all the pictures (of moving subjects) posted in the following threads are taken with primes. Can you show some comparable macros shots taken with a zoom ?
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H1Fy
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gm9V
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GtZm
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GuGL
Another links with some cool samples on Dpreview.com
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&messag...
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Rettop edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
You can also create great macro shots with a reversed 50mm prime.
www.flickr.com/groups/50mmlens/discuss/38126/
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rettop,
There are times when the subject is moving and the option of moving closer or farther is not available. I have some Dragonfly photos on my page that I took with a 28-300 Sigma DG similar to my wife's Tamron. That one does 1:2 Maximum Macro. I took this picture using the Sigma Zoom.
Of course, prime lenses are great in terms of sharpness and if you need true 1:1 Macro capability (which most people do not need or use) Personally I have a Sigma 50MM 2.8 I purchased recently and have been using. But the zooms allow you to get closer or farther without having to switch lenses multiple times and the quality is not bad. I've been into photography since 1977 and have shot using all kinds of lenses, extension tubes, close up filters, etc. in the past, I disliked the lack of contrast zooms had. In the digital age, that's irrelevant because you can adjust the photo very easily using photoshop. It took me a while to embrace the technology but I have adjusted to it and stick to the prime lens when the circumstances make it a better choice.
Venturo: Your zoom should produce images similar to this one in terms of magnification and quality.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks on your prompt reply guys, i appreciate it a lot.
i'd like to share my macro shots, these were taken on my dirt cheap P&S..Canon A410 =)
hope you like it =)
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
TOLZ edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
FUJIBOB- Thanks for your reply. May I know what are extention tubes and how does it work?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think defining Macro would be helpful here. Here is what I found as a definition:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Macro photography is a type of close-up photography. The classical definition is photography in which the image on film or electronic sensor is as large or larger than the subject. Therefore, on 35mm film (for example), the camera has to have the ability to focus on an area at least as small as 24×36 mm, as this is the size of the image on the film. This is a magnification of 1:1.
For example, suppose a photographer wants to take a macro photograph of a coin on film. With the lens set for a magnification of 1:1, he or she moves the camera to and fro until the coin is in focus, then takes the picture. After having the film developed, the photographer can place the coin on the film, and the coin will be exactly the same size as the picture of the coin on the negative or slide.
In recent years, the term macro has come to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a standard 102×152 mm (4×6 inch) print is made, the image is life-size or larger.
Next, the photographer photographs it from farther away, this time, setting the lens to a magnification of 1:4, again moving to and fro until the coin is in focus, and taking the picture. The real coin is now four times as big across as the image; that is, the image and the coin are in a 1:4 relationship. If a 4× enlargement print (about 100×150 mm) is made, the size of the coin will match the size of the photo of the coin. That is, the image is life-size, or 1:1, in the print."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some folks stick to the classic definition of 1:1 compared to the image on the film. Others stick to the current definition which is 1:1 or better when compared to the image on a 4X6 print. Zooms claiming 1:2 and 1:3 Macro capabilities can meet this standard. Digital complicates this further because there is no negative or print and the image size can be very large. The point is that definitions and technology evolve. We should not dismiss the fact that some people prefer or use Zooms that are 1:2, 1:3, and not 1:1 since they do meet the current definition of Macro. A discussion on the sharpness of the images versus the magnification is more relevant and legitimate. Sometimes, there is such a thing as bing to close. Without good composition and a decent subject, a Macro shot taken just for the sake of getting close up has no artistic value.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
I agree that the discussion should be more about image sharpness, details captured, bokeh, contrast and how fast the lens is. Again, I feel that dedicated macro primes perform a much better job at getting great results directly out of the camera rather than doing post processing work. For example, I doubt if you can get the same contrast or bokeh with a zoom that you can get with a 55mm, 60mm, 105mm, or 200mm prime macro lens.
In the digital world, some small point of shoot cameras (Powershot G1, G2, Coolpixs etc) can take really nice macro shots because of the small sensor size which provides them with a better telescopic view of the object. However, they have their own limitations.
As for the ability to move nearer or closer to the subject with a zooms. This is possible with primes too. All the dedicated prime lens I own have a build in extension mechanism in them i.e., the front element moves away or towards from the real element (film or sensor plane). Although, the focal length doesn’t change you can get different sizes for the same object by just moving the camera either towards or away from the macro subject.
Again, these prime lenses are especially designed for macro photography. However, most of these lenses are great general purpose lens as well. For example, the 60mm and 55mm Micro Nikkor are excellent portrait lenses.
I’ve nothing against zooms but I personally feel that dedicated macro primes do a much better job than zooms because zooms are more general purpose.
60mm AF Micro Nikkor
60mm AF Micro Nikkor
55mm MF Micro Nikkor
105mm MF Micro Nikkor
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rettop,
There have been times when a fence or some other obstacle has kept me from getting close enough to the subject. Now, I could carry around 4 prime Macro lenses and decide which one to use at that time, or I can use a macro zoom, and as long as I'm not looking for traditional 1:1, it will do the job.
Regarding the sharpness, I think lenses have evolved a bit from the days when Zooms first came out and the difference in contrast was very significant.
I'll tell you what I'll do. Tonight when I get home, I will photograph a watch with the Sigma 28-300 zoom at 1:2 (which is the maximum magnification) and with the Sigma 50MM Prime at 1:2 magnification. That will allow us to compare apples to apples. two lenses under the same lighting conditions photographing the same subject, etc. I'll also take one at 1:1 so that folks can see the benefit of 1:1 that the prime gives, then crop the Zoom photo to give me the same effect so that sharpness can be compared. I'll leave all photos unretouched or enhanced, except for the crop on the last photo I mentioned. I'll post those as soon as I can and we can all see for ourselves.
I don't think anyone can deny that the zoom allows for some flexibility in framing that a prime lens does not have under circumstances where the subject may be moving closer and further away. Also, it requires less switching of lenses (and exposure of your CCD to possible dust). The big benefit off the Prime as I see it is in its ability to provide traditional 1:1 Macro and I suppose a slight edge in sharpness (although we'll see if that is true when I do the shots later tonight).
This being a site about Macro with a limited audience that is dedicated to taking Macro pictures, I imagine most here prefer primes. If you look at the entire population that takes photographs, most will use zooms and most will not take the traditional extreme 1:1 plus macro shots we see posted here.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LebronPhoto,
Take it easy my friend. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use zooms for macros. Everyone is free to use their choice of equipment as long as they get the results they desire. If you are happy with your results with a zoom then it works for you. I've personally felt that primes are much better than zooms and that's my opinion. You can disagree with it.
As for limited audience, I think that's is a good thing because everyone is here for macro stuff (closer and closer macro photography). I've put another thread to see what types of lenses are people using for their macro photographs. Again, as far as entire population goes, I'm sure people who take landscapes/wildlife/sports would use both zooms and primes. I also use a zoom when I travel and don't want to take macros or portraits.
As for dust, I was really concerned about it when I got my dSLR. In spite of taking all the precautions I still have dust on my sensor. Cleaning dust from your sensor is not a big deal and shouldn't stop anyone from taking good pictures.
I'm looking forward to your results. Also I assume that you are going to going to use your zoom at 50mm for these test shots :)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rettop,
I'm not arguing, I'm just having a discussion on this topic. Through the years, I have heard many arguments pro and con Prime lenses versus Zooms and at one time, I clearly chose primes over zooms except in cricumstances where the zoom was a clear benefit. Sometimes, I think people become lens snobs and look down upon people using zooms, etc. Yet, there is a place for both and that is my point. Most people take a variety of photographs and switching primes, not only macro but even regular primes, gets in the way of capturing the scene or mood desired because by the time you switch, it's gone. On the other hand, someone photographing an imovable object without time constraints can use the lens they best feel will meet that need. Also, some people have limited resources and cannot afford to buy many prime lenses. A zoom may be good for those folks. When someone is considering one and asked for advice as the original poster did, I we should consider what their needs are (maybe that attitude comes from my days selling cameras). Not everyone looking for Macros wants to or needs to photograph the head of an ant. Most probably just want to get close to a flower, Insect or other object.
For the record, for the comparison, I cannot use the Zoom at 50MM because you can only get the 1:2 Macro with the zoom fully extended. The real test is the Macro setting not the focal length of the Zoom. Zooming in to get the macro should be a disadvantage for the zoom lens since it will result in larger apertures and less depth of field. We'll see. It should be interesting. Both lenses are Sigmas so this will eliminate brand quality issues such as generic/non-oem brand versus Nikkor or Zeiss.
Venturo,
What kind of Macro photography were you looking to do? If you need 1:1 You will likely need a prime. If you are looking at flowers and things of that sort in which a 1:2 will give you what you need, the zoom may do fine. Stay tuned later to see the comparison photos I will post.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Fujibob,
Kiron was a lens manufacturer from Japan that made lenses for Vivitar and other companies. They started marketing lenses under their own brand in the 1980s. I have not seen any current Kiron lenses here in the US. Apparently, you can still find used Kirons out there, but nothing modern that will work completely with the current batch of Digital SLRs. (at least not in the U.S.)
It wouldn't surprise me if they are still manufacturing lenses for other lens makers like Tokina, Sigma, etc. There was a connection between them and Tokina in the past.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
Bokoh - This is another area the Sigma 24mm Macro excells, as it has the extra diaphram petal.
Joanne:
It is a basic law of optics that as you focus on objects closer to the sensor/film, the lens elements (or just the front element on some lenses) must move farther out from the sensor/film. Macro lenses are built with very long focusing mechanisms to accomplish this, but most of us don't want to carry around all that extra size and weight. Extension tubes go in between the lens and camera to get the lens elements far enough away from the film to achieve sharp focus on objects very close to the lens. The extension tube(s) allow(s) the normal lens to act like a macro lens in that it can achieve close focus.
However, the true macro lens is also designed for a much flatter plane of focus than the normal lens, so the macro will be sharper into the corners (no defraction) of the sensor or film. The down side here that requires additional exposure times when the lens is that far out, and unfortunately the depth of field at close focus is extremely narrow, so therefore you need to use smaller apertures and longer exposure times, all of which complicated things a bit until digital arrived with instant reviews.
Extension tubes come in several lengths, and may be sold as a set.
I use the 'Jessops' Brand which are extremely light-tight and cheap.
Kenko are also very good but cost a bit more.
Also an external flash hotshoe extender is useful
Hope that makes sense
www.jessops.com
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LebronPhoto,
Yeah discussion is always good and it allows one to learn from each other. And I agree lenses should be bought after considering the needs and budget of the user.
Here are some of my observations about zooms vs prime in general. Not everyone has to agree with these. But, again I feel I get much better results with a prime than a zoom lens.
1. Less complex and cheaper: Primes are much less complex as compared to zooms and hence in most of the cases cheaper. This also means they have a longer life. For example, my only zoom lens is a Nikkor 18-200 VR. It's not a bad lens but it's not as sharp as my primes. And I just cannot use it for low light conditions when the subject is moving. It is too slow for that. The price I paid for it 800 USD is more than what I paid for rest of my primes together (most of which I got from Ebay). The only caveat being that they don’t meter on my current dSLR and they are all manual focus. I don’t care about MF because I anyway use manual focus for all my macro shots. You can easily get a 55mm Micro Nikkor f/2.8 at Ebay for less than 100 bucks. And trust me, it’s one heck of a sharp lens with contrast and bokeh. My point is that in order to get the same features on a zoom I’ve to pay much more. The build of all these lenses is all metal (and glass); on the other hand my only zoom is all plastic and is not strong at all.
2. Faster: Primes are much faster than zooms espeically in low light conditions or conditions when the subject is moving. For example, you can get a 50mm f/1.8 prime both for Canon as well as Nikon for about $100. These are excellent lens for very low light or fast moving subjects. In order got get a zoom that can used wide open you have to pay an arm and a leg. And I don't think there is any doubt these normal lenses are winners. How wide can you open your zoom? So I really don’t buy the argument that zooms are better when your subject is in motion. The only advantage zooms provide is that they save you the trouble of changing lenses and allow you to choose the frame without moving around. And as I mentioned before, you can make an awesome macro lens with a reserved 50mm prime for just 20 bucks.
Okay, are you saying that you can use your zoom only fully extended (300mm) as a macro lens!! If this is the case then isn't your zoom just like a 300mm prime macro that goes just 1:2. Please correct me if this assumption of mine is wrong.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Lebron ;o)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree Rettop about the primes. However when you add the cost of the various Primes together, a Zoom may start looking good to some. As you know, I have, and use both. My only purpose is to help anyone considering a zoom decide what is best for their budget and for their purpose.
The Macro rangeon my Zoom is at the top of the zoom range with 300mm being not 1:2 as I thought (I didn't have the lens on me) but 1:2.75 at 200 it is 1:3.3 and so on. Here are the samples I took:
1. Sigma 28-300 at 300MM 1:3 macro (approximately)
Here is the same shot with the 50MM 2.8 at 1:3
The Zoom looks a little redder. The Prime is slightly sharper but the quality of the zoom is not too bad. For these photos, I was about 2 inches away from the watch with the prime while the zoom allowed me to be about 12 inches away. Of course, a longer Prime would allow a longer distance also.
Here is the real benefit of a Prime Macro 1:1 capability
This one was taken with the Prime
Here is the Zoom cropped to 1:1
Again, the Zoom has a reddish hue. The prime is sharper and the more you magnify or enlarge, the more obvious that is. The Zooms image is not unacceptable at 1:3 but as you crop, you start noticing the loss of sharpness.
Conclusion: Prime lenses will provide greater magnification and sharpness than Zooms. Zooms will give you the ability to go from shooting landscapes to shooting macro (1:2.75, 1:3 depending on the Zoom) without having to switch lenses. The Zoom should meet the needs of most Amateur photographers. Anyone wanting sharp 1:1 Macro should add a prime Macro lens. Which one will depend on what your needs are, Longer for Nature and Objects you can't get too close to and shorter for those inanimate objects that won't run away when you are two inches away.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
LebronPhoto,
Thanks for doing this. Unfortunately I don't have a macro zoom lens and hence cannot do such a test. However, I can post some example from my primes if you would like to see them.
Again, the best way to compare results is either looking at them on a calibrated monitor or to get them printed on pro quality paper (from a pro shop or a good printer at home). But, here the different is clearly visible.
Yeah anyone who is ready to compromise quality can consider zooms. I would rather take the best pictures in one category than taking average pictures in different categories. But that's just me.
If someone want just snapshots I would rather just buy one of the good P&S with just one good lens on it. I've a Sony F717 with a Zeiss f/2.0 lens on it and it takes awesome pictures but has it limitations when it comes to quality photography.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and I'm sure we can have such meaningful and constructive discussions in future as well.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
FUJIBOB : Thanks for the explanation.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
zoom or prime, i think that you have to have some sense of what sort of macro photography you would like to do. in terms of the macro/micro primes, there are essentially 3 key ranges, 50mm-60mm, 90mm-105mm, 180mm-200mm ranges. you would have to consider working distance, min focusing distance, and mag ratio.
@joanne89 - think FUJIBOB has explained extension tubes really well. another option is closeup filters. however, this option could degrade the picture quality a little, depending on the quality of the filter.
@FUJIBOB - thanks for good sharing.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rettop,
Thank you for the discussion. As you say, it really does come down to what you are photographing. The Zoom will give you decent all around capabilities, some limited macro and flexibility. The prime will give you sharper images, especially as you crop or get closer to the subject. Part of the reason is that the zooms do macro at their longest range which also limits depth of field and is not the best portion of the zoom. Anyone whose photography consists of doing lots of Macro (or anyone who has the additional cash to spend) should use primes. People on limited budgets looking for an all around lens with some macro capability will do okay with a zoom since at 1:3, the quality is not really bad. In my photo, I used a watch, but if I was photographing a flower, the difference would not have been significant. In fact, the softer photo may have been better for some.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here are a couple of other Macro photos produced with the Sigma 28-300 Zoom.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
LebronPhoto edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Don't forget the Sigma 150mm!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Robert,
Unfortunately I don't have a Sigma 150mm. I did purchase a 50MM 2.8 DG. which meets my needs when photographing small inanimate objects. I think the 150 or even the 105 would have been good for some of the butterfly and bug photos I take. In the meantime, the Zoom seems to fill that role okay since I don't require extreme sharpness.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kiron was the in-house brand of Kino Optical, which made 35mm MF lenses during the 70's and 80's. The Kiron name was used from the late 70's until they withdrew from the market.
Real macro lenses are not necessarily 1:1, in fact many legendary macro lenses like almost all the Nikon MF Micro-Nikkors (except for the original 55mm from the early 1960's) and the current Canon 50mm f2.8 macro only do 1:2 without extension tubes. Real macro lenses are designed to work best at or close to their minimum focus distance. Some of these have proved to be superb all-round lenses (like the 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor and 90mm f2.8 SP Macro) while others are poor lenses near infinity. But all produce their best performance at short working distances. This is what differentiates them for certain consumer zooms which can achieve similar magnifications.
Note there are true Macro zooms, like the Nikkor 70-180 f4.5-5.6 Micro-Nikkor.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Building on the topic regarding front thread fitting diopters +1,2,3,4 etc.
Whilst these are very easy and portable the image quality can be effected greatly. The better ones have two elements that reduce distortion, defraction but for a wide diameter lens like a zoom, they become very pricy, and very difficult to get hold of.
If you are friendly with an opthalmic lab however....
Maybe we should do tests similar to those above with various diopters?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Closer and Closer Macro Photography /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Closer and Closer Macro Photography discussion threads