Jump to content

Macro choice question..


JadePixel

Recommended Posts

Thoughts on the choice here...

 

Fuji 60 macro,  or the Nikkor 105 Macro with an adapter, to go on a XT-1?   (I have the Nikkor currently as a holdover from my Nikon set that I'm shedding).

 

No AF with the Nikkor isn't so much an issue for macro work, but wondering which will be sharper, and if there's any other issues..

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it would be the Nikkor, for two reasons:

 

1. The Fujinon 60mm isn't a macro lens but a close-up one. It goes only to 1:2 magnification.

 

2. The greater focal length of the Micro-Nikkor, which is a true macro, allows one to work further away from the subject. This might be important for shooting insects, for instance.

 

I have the Fujinon, which I use on my X-T1 and X-T10, and owned the Nikkor (used on a D300). I'd say the image quality of the latter is slightly better but there's not much in it. OTOH, it might have a different colour response to that of a native lens.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that the 1:1 reproduction ratio being needed for a lens to qualify as a macro lens is a myth.

 

This urban legend that the fuji 60mm is not a proper macro lens is repeated throughout the internet by people with seemingly short memories.

 

Since I have been around a while, I can still remember plenty of lenses, all defined and marketed as macro and, dare I say, micro, sold in the past would only reproduce 1:2 without a ring!  

 

The original micro 55mm Nikkor, in fact was also a 1:2 lens and needed a ring to go to 1:1. The same applies to my Pentax 100mm f4 macro!

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm

 

“...This highly rated lens can reach a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 (0.5X) with its internal helical focus mechanism. With a matching PK-13 Auto Extension Ring, the ratio can reach 1:1 Life Size (1X)- so does when it is used in combination with a 2X teleconverter such as Ai-TC-200 or Ai-S TC-201"

 

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Multi-Coated-MACRO-TAKUMAR-100mm-F4-Macro.html

 

“.......The Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 1:4/100 is an excellent macro lens. Mechanically and optically the lens does not leave to be desired for anything more - the lens is ergonomic, easy to use and very sharp all over the APS-C frame at any given aperture. The background blur is soft and smooth even taking into account that this is not a fast lens. There are no visible optical aberrations with the APS-C sensor. The maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 is the same as that of most of modern macro lenses with similar focal lengths of 90 mm "

 

 

Add a ring to the 60mm and you’ll get this magic 1:1 ratio that you so much covet!

 

Anyway.

 

The 60mm is an excellent lens, if you use this lens you will have the complete benefit of all the automatisms and the autofocus.

 

One could argue that autofocus in extreme close up is not all that useful of well executed and that an adapted lens would perform well but personally I’d prefer to use the 60mm with a ring when you need the extreme or even more than that, magnification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add a ring to the 60mm and you’ll get this magic 1:1 ratio that you so much covet!

 

While I do agree with your point about macro in general, I have also read a lot about the 60mm not working too well with the close focus adaptors. 

I personally own the Zeiss 50mm Touit Macro and it is an absolutely tremendous lens. The only thing I wish it had is a longer focal length. But as I rarely ever need 1:1 or even 1:2 it's okay. I'm selling it right now, but that's not because of the capabilities, more because I don't use it enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was waiting for the OP to chime in, at least on substantive matters, but he seems to have gone to sleep. I'll therefore continue the off-topic thread about the definition of macro.

 

> I am afraid that the 1:1 reproduction ratio being needed for a lens to qualify as a macro lens is a myth.

 

You seem happy to put your trust in bloggers, journalists and marketeers but, alas, few of them are conscientious or even knowledgeable custodians of the language. I prefer more rigorous sources.

 

1. For instance, the ninth edition of The Manual of Photography (pub. 2000) says this:

 

"Not all ‘macro’ zoom lenses offer a genuine 1:1 image scale; the term ‘macro’ has become devalued and often just used to mean a close-focus capability." (They must have been thinking of you.)

 

The Manual -- formerly the Ilford Manual of Photography -- is a long-established and respected reference on photography, first published in 1890. Three of its four authors are fellows of the Royal Photographic Society, the main British learned body on photography, as well has having relevant MScs and PhDs. The fourth is a 'mere' BSc.

 

2. John Humphrey, another FRPS, says this in his book, Close-up and Macro Photography:

 

"Macro photography can be more precisely defined [than close-up photography]. It means the image on the sensor is at least as large as the image being photographed."

 

3. The Oxford English Dictionary says, about macrophotography:

 

"Photography in which objects are reproduced larger than or at their actual size but without the degree of magnification that use of a microscope would give."

 

4. The online Merriam Webster dictionary says this, under "macro lens":

 

"...a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image".

 

5. And, finally, even Wikipedia (multiple authors) goes with life-sized. From the entry on macro photography:

 

"...a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios of at least 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1."

 

A pretty substantial myth, eh?

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have shown, a lot of lenses were produced by lens makers ( not internet commentators, but actual lens makers) such as nikon, pentax, zeiss,olympus, and were given the predicate macro and micro but didn’t get to 1:1 reproduction ratio.

 

I suppose that one might agree that lens makers know a few things more about macro lenses than dictionaries compilers whose task is to register the use of language ( I have been studying languages & linguistics and I am aware of how a dictionary is compiled)  but don’t make the things called macro and haven’t given them their name.

 

So, if a language myth takes a foothold a dictionary will report it as it is used, even badly. 

 

However the lens makers have a different opinion on these terms.

 

Some define and have historically defined as macro and micro ( although micro, linguistically, should indicate that the reproduction ratio should be greater than life-size so with an actual magnification of the subject) many lenses which reproduce lifesize and sometimes less than that.

 

 

 

A substantial amount of them in this list is half size ( and actually there will be more if the would include some older lenses for example it lists the pentax 100mm f2.8 but not the earlier f4 ( which I own and use), the same is also true fro the early versions Tamron 90mm and Vivitar 90mm, also half size but not listed among these lenses below)

 

 

From Wikipedia (a partial list of lenses not including many with reproduction ratios lesser than 1:1, but nevertheless apt to show that there are several Macro lenses which didn’t get any furthere than 1:2  and some a lot less than that , such as the Schneider Makro or the Kern macro switar)

 

Lens focal length Reproduction Ratio Closest Focus Canon EF Compact f/2.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 6in.

Canon EF-S f/2.8 USM 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8in.

Canon MP-E f/2.8 1-5x 65mm 5:1 (life size) 7in.

Canon EF f/2.8 USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.

Canon EF f/2.8L IS USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.

Canon EF f/3.5L USM 180mm 1:1 (life size) 19in.

Fujifilm XF60mmF2.4 R Macro [16] 60mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.5in.

Nikon AF-S DX f/2.8G 40mm 1:1 (life size) 6.4in.

Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 55mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.8in.

Nikon AF Nikkor f/2.8D 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8.75in.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor f/2.8G ED 60mm 1:1 (life size) 6in.

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor f/3.5G ED VR 85mm 1:1 (life size) 9in.

Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 105mm 1:2 (half life size) 16.08in.

Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor f/2.8G IF-ED 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.

Nikon AF Nikkor f/4D IF-ED 200mm 1:1 (life size) 20in.

Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D ED 45mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.9in.

Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D 85mm 1:2 (half life size) 15in.

Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 90mm 1:2 (half life size) 15.7in.

Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in.

Olympus Zuiko Macro f/3.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.1in.

Olympus ED-Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:1 (35mm eqv. 2x life size) 9.5in.

Olympus m.Zuiko Macro f/2.8 60mm 1:2 (35mm eqv. life size) 7.5in.

Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited 35mm 1:1 (life size) 5.4in.

Pentax D-FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.67in.

Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR 100mm 1:1 (life size) 9.9in.

Schneider Kreuznach PC-TS MAKRO-SYMMAR 4.5/90 HM[17] 90mm 1:4 (quarter life size) 22.8in. ( 1/4 size......!)

Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[18] 50mm 1:1 (life size) 5.3in.

Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[19] 70mm 1:1 (life size) 10.1in.

Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro[20] 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12.3in.

Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro[21] 150mm 1:1 (life size) 15in.

Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM[22] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.6in.

Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 30mm 1:1 (life size) 4.8in.

Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.8in.

Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 100mm 1:1 (life size) 14.4in.

Tamron SP 60mm f/2.0 Di II 1:1 Macro[23] 60mm 1:1 (life size) 9.1in.

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro[24] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.4in.

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro[25] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.8in. 

Tamron SP 180mm f/3.5 Di 1:1 Macro[26] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.5in.

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50[27] 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in.

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100[28] 100mm 1:2 (half life size) 17.6in.

[29] [30] [31] [32]

 

To these I would certainly add the Alpa Kern Macro Switar with only 1:3 reproduction ratio, but, called macro, nonetheless.

Pentax 100mm f4 Macro ( half life size)

Micro Nikkor ( half life size)

 

 

 

What do they ( Kern, Pentax and Nikkon) know about lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why some people need to get a 1:1 capture. What is magical about that reproduction ratio? Why not 2:1? 1:1 just means you're capturing an image at focus that's the size of your sensor. Why stop there? What do you do with those images once taken that makes 1:1 so important? Why are you even bothering to do this on APS-C when surely 35mm or larger would be more practical and better served anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeiss, Kern, Fuji, Nikkor, Pentax, Olympus... they all called at some stage macro lenses which according to your questionable criterium and again, the original Nikkor micro which only got to 2:1  ?

 

No need to be hung up with this definitions , if you want 1:1 ( or more) on the 60mm just add a tube or a lens. 

 

 

Life is already too complicated to argue about terms

 

However, I’ve shown providing ample examples that the term macro was and still is being used for many types of lenses  ( with reproduction ratios varying from 1:4  to 1:1) which clearly disproves, with facts, the idea that the term macro is ONLY applicable and limited to lenses offering the 1:1 reproduction ratio.

 

Think what you want of it, but the 60mm is a macro lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points, then I've finished in this discussion. This mini-thread is getting boring.

1. Throwing large and repetitive chunks of Wikipedia at an argument does not bolster it, especially when there is a flawed assumption underlying that reference. (And doing so is anyway tedious. Just link to it; that's what URLs are for.)

The assumption in this case is that the engineers who design and specify a lens also decide what it is called and how it is sold. If you've ever worked in manufacturing industry you will be aware of marketeers' propensity to claim more for a product than it was designed for and to grab any word that sounds impressive to describe it and its abilities. (Engineers understandably find this frustrating.)

This is as likely to apply to close-focusing lenses that can't reach a 1:1 magnification as it is to any other oversold product. The fact that the marketing people have labelled such a lens "macro" or "micro" is proof of nothing beyond their eagerness to trade on customers' credulity.

2. It seems to me that you are arguing that the 1:1 definition is not only a misapprehension ('myth', in your term) but a modern misapprehension. You've got it the wrong way round -- the 'Humpty Dumpty'* definition is the newer.

Being a student of languages and linguistics, you will be aware that the OED is an historical dictionary, giving not only contemporary meanings but also those from the past. The two earliest citations for "macrophotography" are:

1889 E. J. Wall Dict. Photogr. 114 "Macro-photography, a term used to denote the enlargement of the negative."

1940 A. L. M. Sowerby Wall's Dict. Photogr. (ed. 15) 438 "Macro-photographs, term applied to photographs of small objects reproduced at or about natural size...".

You correctly observed that "if a language myth [sic] takes a foothold a dictionary will report it as it is used, even badly". It is clear from the above that the 1:1 definition gained its particular foothold at least as far back as 1940. So which is the modern misapprehension?

Roger

*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." (Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply used the same wikipedia article which you quoted, I just took the list of lenses scrolling down, from the same place and copied it there, you forgot to do that.

 

You obviously are selective in your quotes. Just in case someone might think that yours is the whole page that you’ve quoted I took the time to make my point with examples.

 

They should have shown you something, but they obviously didn’t.

 

Quote selectively all you want, the fact, plain and simple for all to see in a list of lenses from a page which you quoted first, and it is and remains that many macro lenses are not fitting your arbitrary criteria.

 

I don’t dispute that most modern lenses have succumbed to this 1:1 business but I put to the attention of the members of this forum that the predicate Macro, as applied to a lens and not to enlargements or other contexts, simply defines a lens with close up capabilities from 1:4 to 1: 1 and perhaps even more , 2:1, 3:1...where is the limit?

 

The 60mm fuji IS a macro lens as much ( or as little) as others before of it, were.

 

Again, maybe you’ve missed these. None of these is even close to 1:1 reproduction ratio. Two are called Macro one is called Micro. May I rest this case? It is getting heavy and I am no longer entertained.

 

You can bring an wise and stubborn equine to the water but you cannot make it drink, this is now painfully obvious let’s leave it to that.

 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why some people need to get a 1:1 capture. What is magical about that reproduction ratio? Why not 2:1? 1:1 just means you're capturing an image at focus that's the size of your sensor. Why stop there? What do you do with those images once taken that makes 1:1 so important? Why are you even bothering to do this on APS-C when surely 35mm or larger would be more practical and better served anyway?

 

1:1 does`nt mean its the size of the sensor, it means it`s life size on the sensor, ie, if it`s 10mm long in real life, it`s 10mm long on the sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1:1 does`nt mean its the size of the sensor, it means it`s life size on the sensor, ie, if it`s 10mm long in real life, it`s 10mm long on the sensor.

I know that; but why do you need that specifically? what is it about 1:1 that brings on all these pointless arguments? Why not get even larger than life on a larger sensor with more lens options?

 

Sorry, but I don't see the advantage of mirrorless when you're shooting macro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yesterday I told a friend ( my former business partner in a photographic studio which we had together years ago) about this thread and he burst in laughter at the suggestion that a macro lens is defined by being able to reach 1:1 and , I am quoting, he said : “ these folks have never heard of medium format?  How about the Pentax 135mm macro of our 6 x7? A 1:3 lens "

 

Yes, I know, ancient lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that;

 

But that`s not what you said.

 

 

 but why do you need that specifically? what is it about 1:1 that brings on all these pointless arguments?

 

You don`t need that specifically but if you`re starting from 1:1 adding tubes etc gives you even more magnification.

 

 

 Why not get even larger than life on a larger sensor

 

 

I do, I have a Canon mpe65mm which is 5X life size.

 

 

Sorry, but I don't see the advantage of mirrorless when you're shooting macro.

 

There isn`t any advantage!  Who said there was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to make a point that may or may not influence someones decision in what lens to buy.  Adding extension tubes makes any lens they are attatched to, become less user friendly, basically you lose infinity focus and you have a very narrow focus field which varies depending on the lens used.  It can be pretty frustrating when taking a tiny mini beast with an extension tube on, then spotting a butterfly posing and having to remove the tube before attempting the butterfly.

 

Here`s a question I would like to throw in:

 

At what point does close-up become macro?

Is it 1:2 as Fuji suggest with their 60mm?  Is it 1:3 that Milandros friend says that Pentax have  used?  Is it 1:5 that Canikon use with some of their lower priced zooms?  Or something completely different.

 

I`m guessing that lens manufacturers put macro on some lenses is that it sounds better than "not quite macro but that`s all your getting"

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

At what point does close-up become macro?

Is it 1:2 as Fuji suggest with their 60mm?  Is it 1:3 that Milandros friend says that Pentax have  used?  Is it 1:5 that Canikon use with some of their lower priced zooms?  Or something completely different.

[...]

 

Or do it Nikon style with that Small World contest they have every year. Photomicrography competition, that should be macro enough even for the most hardcore of us.

 

I really don't think we would all agree on what Macro should be in the photography world, and that's good. Diversity for a whole specie is good, it allows more branch to appear and other to develop in ways that nobody would have foreseen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly a diversity contest or a matter of religious affiliation (but I admit that it looks like that) but simply some self declared optical orthodox folks not wanting to see that lenses which weren’t 1:1 have been designed as macro at least from the ’50 of last century onwards.

 

In this tradition the Fuji 60mm is a macro lens.

 

Whilst I have no problem to accept that there are ALSO macro lenses with a reproduction ratio of 1:1, there are those who declare themselves the defenders of optical orthodoxy and cling to an absolute but arbitrary definition, even after have been given many examples of the contrary. 

 

I have a name for this movement.

 

Optical radical integralists.  ;)  have a happy new year, 1:1 ( and I don’t mean a lens)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...