FX 60mm 2.4 Macro

[milandro]

if you have to use a lens which wasn’t made for a Fuji mirrorless camera ( with no autofocus or any electric communication with the camera) you might as well use a secondhand adapted classic lens and save big bucks.

 

Tamoron 90mm SP or Sigma 105 comes to mind.

 

Yet, I think that the benefits of autofocus are underestimated here, besides, I suspect that the camera does all sort of modifications to the image (even on the so called untouched raw) that we are not aware of, all depending on the camera communicating with the lens ( part of this is also done on adapted lenses that’s why we tell the camera which focal lens we are using  when adapted) which are probably correcting some of the less apparent optic defects with software, as far as this can be done. The benefit of which is completely lost on adapted or third party lenses ( with the exception of Zeiss ).

[azmmount]

Tamoron 90mm SP or Sigma 105 comes to mind.

 

IMO, particularly with macro, you need to make sure you get full aperture control. I'm not sure that either of those excellent macro lenses offer that. You probably don't want to shoot all your macros at f/2.8. You could buy the adapters with aperture in them but I got the impression from reading (not experience) that they might just cause vignetting and not really do the DOF management thing for which I assume they are designed. Personally, I would prefer the aperture in the lens.

 

In my limited experience with macros thus far I have never seen one, no matter of price, that wasn't excellent as a macro.

[Bobitybob]

I've got a 60 Macro and I have to say I'm not that impressed with the auto focus as I find it quite often misses.  I've also got a Raynox 250 for it but that only seems to make it worse.  I haven't had either that long so perhaps its me 

 

If you are looking for a cheap alternative, you could do worse than a Canon FD 50mm (small and light) or perhaps better still 100mm (heavier but gives 1:1) and an adaptor.  Full manual, with aperture control and very good sharpness.  Example below using my X-T1 and the 50mm version.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

I've also got a Leica Macro Elmar-R 1:4/100, very good but more expensive than the Canon, example below using my X-E1.

 

 

[milandro]

Those lenses come in a number of versions and they do offer control. The Tamron was already around when there were no auto focus lenses and no electric contacts!

 

 

Bobitybob, my 60mm became definitely better at focussing with the firmware upgrade.

[marcelo_valente]

Those lenses come in a number of versions and they do offer control. The Tamron was already around when there were no auto focus lenses and no electric contacts!

 

 

Bobitybob, my 60mm became definitely better at focussing with the firmware upgrade.

Auto focus on macro shots is something that sometimes I don't even use because you focus mostly by moving the camera back and forth when you are very close and with shallow dof

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[milandro]

I do manage to use the autofocus with this lens but I hardly ever use the 60mm to the minimum distance.

[azmmount]

Those lenses come in a number of versions and they do offer control. 

 

Interesting. I see now that the Tamron and Sigma might even still have aperture control in the Nikon mount. Years ago I had a Tamron 180 macro and it was stellar as a macro - not so good otherwise. More recently I had a Sigma 150 which was awesome for just about anything but super heavy.

[marcelo_valente]

Interesting. I see now that the Tamron and Sigma might even still have aperture control in the Nikon mount. Years ago I had a Tamron 180 macro and it was stellar as a macro - not so good otherwise. More recently I had a Sigma 150 which was awesome for just about anything but super heavy.

Get a lester dine 105mm. I was going to get one but decided for the 60mm. It's one of the best macro lenses I've seen.

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[gordonrussell76]

Hey all

 

Well I just pulled the trigger on this lens on Ebay last night, so looking forward to seeing how I like it.

 

G

[gordonrussell76]

So far loving it

 

Like i think Marcelo I am not a fully paid up member of the bokeh club, or I am but I like my bokeh subtle. I.e I often stop my 35mm down to 2.4 etc so I get some pop and blur, but not crazy thin DOF, well the 60 is great for me as wide open its pretty much where I like it.

First shots are very very encouraging, and I love the way the Bokeh renders, very subtle. I have not had time to properly process any shots yet so that will be the final test.

G

[marcelo_valente]

So, I finally got around to doing a test shot with the raynox.

 

Here is a shot at closest shooting distance.  

 

FXE26556.jpg by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

 

This one, now with the raynox 250.  There is also a 150 option for the raynox, but, I don't have it.

 

This is the top flower from the three above, at minimum focusing distance with the raynox 250

 

FXE26551.jpg by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

[drb]

nice photos but the reviews don't convince me...i'm really looking for a close up macro solution and it sounds like a mixed bag between half focus and portrait lens...

 

 

 

Fujifilm’s 60mm f2.4 X series lens isn’t really a macro lens per se due to the fact that it doesn’t focus down to a 1:1 ratio; but it can surely focus closely.
 

 

from http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/06/02/review-fujifilm-60mm-f2-4-macro-x-series/#.VevQURGeDRZ

[milandro]

It is not so much the reviews but the examples shown form us owners. If you don’t find those convincing then you need another lens.

 

If you can reproduce, full format, an object that is 4,5cm in width as shown by my example of a ruler, then this 60mm is a lens with close up capabilities suitable for the majority of macro uses.

 

Of course you could be hung up by semantics and insist that that is only 1:2 reproduction ratio.

 

Naturally, you can crop and still have plenty of image or you can use a ring or a close up lens to get even closer to achieve the 1:1 ratio which you seem to consider the only ever “ macro” lenses.

 

From Wikipedia, the article “ Macro-Photography” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

 

“...Apart from technical photography and film-based processes, where the size of the image on the negative or image sensor is the subject of discussion, the finished print or on-screen image more commonly lends a photograph its macro status. For example, when producing a 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print using 135 format (3.6×2.4 cm) film or sensor, a life-size result is possible with a lens having only a 1:4 reproduction ratio....."

 

However just to remind you, some of the best macro lenses of the history of photography didn’t necessarily reach ( without an additional ring) the 1:1.

 

I own the Asahi Pentax 100mm 4 which got to  1:2 reproduction ratio too and was and still is an excellent Macro lens.

 

Find your lens and most importantly use it.

[drb]

Thanks for the comments.

 

I bought one for my timepiece photography.

I'll upload some photos if I'm successful.

 

I'm thinking about buying 10mm and 16mm extension tubes for this lens too but perhaps it is overkill and redundant?

[milandro]

unless you are shooting details of your timepieces which need being enlarged, in prints, to over 100cm on the longest side of the print, you can easily crop your shot and still not need any tube.

[zsb74]

good lens

 

[Snzkgb]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!