lightpainter

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.

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)

 

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:)

.

 
 

Here one of my first few tests with 80mm macro
Frosted window pane

.
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…).
 
.

.
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…).
 
.

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)

 

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)

 

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)

 

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:)

.

 
 

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:)

.

 
 

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.

The alpes

Morgens über den Alpen by Mehrdad, auf Flickr

_6260171Tu por José Luis Rodríguez [/ url], en Flickr
Capadocia, Turquía

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

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

Bliss Dance Sculpture, Treasure Island, San Francisco, USA
 

 
 
 
 

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

Bliss Dance Sculpture, Treasure Island, San Francisco, USA
 

 
 
 
 

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

Antananarivo (Tana), Madagascar
 

 
 

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

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

Antananarivo (Tana), Madagascar