Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 D ED
Page <prev 2 of 2
Oct 20, 2022 05:28:53   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
User ID wrote:
Theres nothing "true macro" about built-in focusing to 1:1. Some non macro lenses can do that and OTOH some of the very best macro lenses cannot close focus at all without accessories.

Any lens is or is not a "true macro" by its optical formula, not by the range of its built-in focusing mechanism.

I have a 15mm FF ultrawide that focuses down to 1:1 without accessories. At 1:1 you can image the dust particles on the front glass.

Fun with dumbass ultrawide 1:1 macro:
Theres nothing "true macro" about built-... (show quote)


Perhaps you could tell us what "true macro" is (if you know) I don't believe there is a single definition, but most normal people consider 1:1 true macro when speaking about photography. "When in Rome do as the Romans do"

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 05:30:47   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
Thomas902 wrote:
"Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 D ED... What is so special about this lens? ...am I missing something here?"

Yes, obviously you don't shoot much product commercially to pay the bills, otherwise you wouldn't be broaching your query. i.e. time is money... especially for those who shoot high end product... enough said.

And thank you cmc4214 for your thoughts about the southern range of (endangered) Trillium...
I deeply appreciate your taking the time for this reply on same in a recent thread...
"They seem fairly common around here (SW Pa.)" rural area." That's wonderful to know
"Nikon 70-180mm F/4.5-5.6 D ED... What is so... (show quote)


You are right, I don't do any product shoots, but I would still like to hear why it is so special

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 09:37:52   #
BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh
 
therwol wrote:
The 70-180 F/4.5-5.6 D is a macro (Micro per Nikon) lens. ---. Keep in mind that this is a "D" lens and requires a motor in the body of the camera to autofocus, though you would likely use manual focus in the macro range.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70180.htm

PS. Nikon's Micro lenses that use the motor in the camera body will not work with the in-camera focus stacking feature of any of its cameras, including DSLRs that do have the motor, such as the D850.


Generally you are correct about the D (distance infor) lenses where autofocus requires a body with integrated motor. The early AF nikon lenses relied on a screw drive connection to the camera body to drive the focus. There are exceptions however, Nikon made an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 D zoom lens that contains a silent wave focus motor. An exceptional lens; although not as sharp as the Z mount wide angle zooms it is still a very desireable lens, well built, fast aperture and useful focal range.

A complete listing of Nikon's F mount integrated focus motor lenses can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikon_F-mount_lenses_with_integrated_autofocus_motor

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2022 09:58:18   #
User ID
 
therwol wrote:
I'm not worried about Thomas' remarks. I'm not worried about deuterium either. I suppose some maniac in Moscow might send some flying our way, but I'm not going to worry about that either.

Acoarst !
Dont worrrry, be hoppppy !

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 10:25:21   #
User ID
 
cmc4214 wrote:
Perhaps you could tell us what "true macro" is (if you know) I don't believe there is a single definition, but most normal people consider 1:1 true macro when speaking about photography. "When in Rome do as the Romans do"


"Most people" ?!?!?!
Red flag right there :-(

Brief description of required qualities of "true macro" optics:
Minimizes all aberations that plague most other lenses in close focused use ... most especially distortion and field curvature.

Physical description: symmetrical or near symmetrical design, of modest aperture (approx f4 to f8).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Acoarst all other aberations, although not peculiar to only close focus work, must likewise be minimized to inconsequencial levels.

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 19:31:59   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
User ID wrote:
"Most people" ?!?!?!
Red flag right there :-(

Brief description of required qualities of "true macro" optics:
Minimizes all aberations that plague most other lenses in close focused use ... most especially distortion and field curvature.

Physical description: symmetrical or near symmetrical design, of modest aperture (approx f4 to f8).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Acoarst all other aberations, although not peculiar to only close focus work, must likewise be minimized to inconsequencial levels.
"Most people" ?!?!?! br Red flag right ... (show quote)


Thanks for the explanation, but it begs another question; What distance is considered close focused?

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 20:04:41   #
User ID
 
cmc4214 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, but it begs another question; What distance is considered close focused?

Closer than about 5x the FL, on down to about 5x lifesize. (AKA "1:5 thru 5:1"). This is NOT a job for wide angles or telephotos. Long Focus is OK but the mechanics of it get unwieldy. Up to 180 or 200mm FF is workable, and especially favored in the 1:4 to 1:2 range. Do the math. A 200 macro at 1:1 would mean 80cm from optical center to subject ... IOW the whole operation is about one meter long.

After that its really photo microscopy (with rather short FL optics).

Acoarst others will insist on futzing with the numbers, but Im guessing you just wanted the general idea ?

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2022 20:14:08   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
User ID wrote:
Closer than about 5x the FL, on down to about 5x lifesize. AKA "1:5 thru 5:1". This is NOT a job for wide angles or telephotos. Long Focus is OK but the mechanics of that get unwieldy. Up to 180 or 200mm FF is workable, especially favored in the 1:4 to 1:2 range. Learn the math. A 200 macro at 1:1 would mean 80cm from optical center to subject ... IOW the whole operation is about one meter long.

After that its really photo microscopy (with rather short FL optics).

Acoarst others will insist on futzing with the numbers, but Im guessing you just wanted the general idea ?
Closer than about 5x the FL, on down to about 5x l... (show quote)


Thanks again. This is the first time I've heard a reasonable definition of macro.

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 23:21:09   #
User ID
 
User ID wrote:
Closer than about 5x the FL, on down to about 5x lifesize. (AKA "1:5 thru 5:1"). This is NOT a job for wide angles or telephotos. Long Focus is OK but the mechanics of it get unwieldy. Up to 180 or 200mm FF is workable, and especially favored in the 1:4 to 1:2 range. Do the math. A 200 macro at 1:1 would mean 80cm from optical center to subject ... IOW the whole operation is about one meter long.

After that its really photo microscopy (with rather short FL optics).

Acoarst others will insist on futzing with the numbers, but Im guessing you just wanted the general idea ?
Closer than about 5x the FL, on down to about 5x l... (show quote)
Ooooooopz !!!
That 80cm is not measured at the optical center. It the distance from the sensor to the subject.

All the other remarks are in line with that. Just change "optical center" to "sensor" and it all makes proper sense.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.