lightpainter

. Yes, also the XF80 shows visible focus breathing at very close distances. You can't avoid this effect completely within a reasonable budget, especially at closer distances. Cine lenses need to do so, and do but, also not at close distances, and at about 10-100 times the price... As for x-trans: I actually had annoying color noise in dark (pushed) areas with the 5D & 5DII. With the D800 & D810 this was practically no longer a problem. In fact, I find these Nikons even better than the X-T2 as soon as dark areas are pushed. .

. I refocused the lens. With such a long distance the DOF had to ‘travel’, compared to the short working distance, moving the camera would have changed the perspective considerably (also refocusing did, but not that much). Yes, I do like the XF80 – with caveats. For close-up/macro work it beats the Zeiss Touit 50 Macro by a slight margin. Nothing to write home about though. Despite its size, I prefer the XF80 for its longer reach and faster AF, and for its OIS at times. I’ve hoped for XF90 bokeh with contrasty background at farther distances though. Instead, it’s rather like the XF50-140 here. Bummer. Albeit being a tad sharper than the XF90, the XF90 would still remain my 1st choice when it comes to portrait or landscape (within this range of focal length). The Sigma 180/2.8 macro I used on the D810. Sold it in favor of the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro - because of the bokeh. The 180’s rendering of strong highlights, especially in the transition zone, looks terrible to me. Heavily ring shaped and with onion patterns. I’ve used the Sigma macros 105 OS, 150 Apo OS, 180 Apo OS and the Nikkor 105 VR (all on the D800 or D810). To my eyes, the XF80 is easily sharper, with AF only a bit slower (on X-T2 3.00). Based on the same angle of view on sensor level (different magn. ratios), on the APS-C x-Trans X-T2, the really very sharp XF80 provides no benefit with respect to enlargeability compared to, e.g., the Sigma 150 Apo OS on full frame D810 (prints from Epson 3880). Actually, I’d clearly still give preference to my D810 shots owing to the overall clarity and tonality. Based on the same magnification ratio on sensor level, the XF80/X-T2 can beat the Sigma150/D810, when using sophisticated x-trans demosaicing. Sure the D810 can go further given the right glass (some of my old shots with the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 on D810 still wipe the floor with Fuji-X - on large prints…). PS: After many years of using the D800 & D810, I must admit that I don’t like x-trans. Don’t see any advantage, only workflow hassle (from raw). I prefer the Fuji-X System as a whole over the FF bulk though (yes, XF lenses can be bulky too). Miss the DR and pushability of the D810 files but, other than that, the IQ compromises are rarely relevant (large prints), esp. with lenses like the XF90 or XF80. If I go back to a larger format than to medium format (provided I hit a jackpot…). .

. This tooth is that dark and the bone part is almost black. I've also an ivory-colored one here but I'm waiting for some light equipment to do that more tricky one too. .

Shark tooth (~22x22mm), focus stack from 183 frames @ f/5.6 using Zerene Stacker. (XF80 on X-T2 (RAW), development of RAF files proir to stacking as described in post #1) Original size, ~10 MByte JPG (click)

Cat-eyes, swirl and DOF transition ??? .

So what? What is exact in real life then, other than having lenses in front of image sensors that produce raw files (according to the programmers' algorithms, yes)? Again, that is what applies to all lenses in the digital era. Just choose your favorite after comparison. I don't care of analyses on lab benches with whatever llight detection systems because I don't attach my lenses to such systems. As for the XF80, its obvious poor rendition of bokeh hardly depends on these things. And it's resolution is hard to beat, whichever correction is applied. .

Good point. Boon and bane. More boon I think, though. You can't twaek a lemmon beyond lemmon-limits. At the end of the day, what is of interest is the final result that is possible with a certain lens (or chain of tools & methods). And comparisons are still possible, since all these possibilities apply to all lenses - IF the applied methods are documented. I should have mentioned, and add it here and to post #1, any auto-correction has been unchecked/omitted in Iridient/ACR when developing the RAF-files in post #1.

We got your point, and I second that. That was mine .

I’d call it Zeiss-ish, even more than that, which isn’t necessarily good. The XF80 has a veeery steep transition zone, leading very fast to quite strong (“muddy”) blur. This, along with strong contrast, is part if the 3D-pop fingerprint of Zeiss lenses. I also prefer a smoother transition with a smoother fading background (more Leica-ish; miss the days of my Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100/2.8). Interestingly, the Zeiss Touit 50 Macro is less typical Zeiss-ish (less 3D pop) than the XF80 is in this discipline. .

XF80 on X-T2 (RAW), tripod, electronic shutter, self timer Developing steps applied: - sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw 10 (sharpening settings 40 / 1,0 / 100 / 40 in the ACR details tab) - demosaicing with Iridient X-Transformer (RAW Process: „more detailed“; sharpening: "none") - in ACR saturation +10-15 - any digital auto-correction has been unchecked/omitted in Iridient/ACR - via Photoshop CC saved to TIF/JPG - no further sharpening applied to the pics with original size (see links below) - output sharpening in PS CC via unsharp mask applied to the smaller pics embedded here for direct view (Amount 50% / Radius 1 Pixel / Threshold 1 Level) - slight cropping of the pics with the bismuth crystal and the bulbs Original size, 5-9 MByte-JPGs (click): Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6 Coffee beans, @ f8 Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6 downsized: Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6 Coffee beans, @ f8 Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6 Veeery nice lens (...quite big though :eek:) .

If you are really ready to spend $1.000 or more for an "incredibly awesome vintage macro glass" (and 1:2 is not an issue) I can only recommend the Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm f2.8. It'll be a waste on APS-C though as it is better far into the full frame edges than many (even current) Japanese macros in their center. You may also want to read Michael Erlewine's "Close-Up and Macro Photography" or "Close-Up and Macro Lenses", freely downloadable as pdf from his site. There he provides one of the most complete overviews of vintage (and some current) close-up and macro lenses. Edit: Oups, just reread your 1st post - you cannot afford the Leica. Sorry. Nevertheless, Michael Erlewine's publications may be helpful for you.

Great optics also on the X-T2, sharp and beautiful Bokeh. As for the working distance, it is actually relatively long for a 60mm lens owing to the non-internal focusing design (physical length changes while focusing, almost retaining the focal length while focusing as opposed to internally focusing lenses). That said, I’m waiting for the XF 80mm macro... (and hoped for the XF 120mm macro) As for 1:1 vs. 1:2. MSW already made good points with respect to the history of macro lenses as well as the challenge of successfully handling such reproduction ratios. A true macro lens is (costly) optically optimized for its minimum focus distance, unlike non-macros, be it 1:1 or not. 1:1 may be nice to have but it’s not a clear-cut criterion for a lens for being a dedicated macro lens as 1:1 can also be achieved with lenses that are not optimized for their minimum distance. ErikN, you may also want to consider the Zeiss Touit 50mm macro. It is 1:1 and a tad sharper, has a bit more contrast, and its AF is a tiny bit faster. Bokeh in the transition zone, esp. with contrasty structures and highlights, is not as smooth as with the XF60, and when approaching 1:1, the working distance gets really short though. It's not WR too. (I have both)

Sorry, but this is a terribly wrong myth. Each lens is designed for optimal convergence of light at a specific flange distance (register distance). At this distance maximum resolution (and minimum aberrations) is achieved. Some lenses are more prone to aberrations/degradation when this optimal distance is going to be altered, some are more tolerant. The more tolerant ones are those that are most suitable for being used with bellows or extension tubes. One of the best macro lenses ever made, the Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm f2.8, is relatively prone to flange distance changes, and Leica does not recommend using it with any extension! Same goes with the Fujifilm XF 60mm f2.4 Macro. I had/have both and can confirm that from experience. The Leica performs much better with Leica’s Apo 2x teleconverter than with any extension (the converter doubles the reproduction ratio as it retains minimum focus distance). The Fujifilm XF 60 I tried with the Fujifilm extension tubes – and gave up. As for the main topic here, the XF 90 with Raynox 250 is a surprisingly nice performing combo indeed.

Antananarivo (Tana), Madagascar

San Francisco (view from Bernal Heights over Mission District to Financial District and Oakland Bay Bridge)

Bliss Dance Sculpture, Treasure Island, San Francisco, USA