Using a Macro as an everyday lens ... does it make sense, or no? (Page 2): This is a perfect example of where using an FX lens on a crop-body makes perfect sense. Yes, I suppose it...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

MrBob wrote:

My Canon 100 2.8 non USM Macro is equiv. to a 160 on my 60D and is WONDERFUL as a dog chaser... Sharp as my L and gives me the reach to not have to be on top the animals in the yard; 160 equiv. as a Macro gives me that extra working distance.... a good example where an FX lens does the job on a DX body... IMHO , having both a DX and FX body gives you a lot of options with FX lenses.

This is a perfect example of where using an FX lens on a crop-body makes perfect sense. Yes, I suppose it would, Bob ... (give you a lot of options, I mean.)

The EOS 60D is a wonderful camera, Bob ... I have it, too ...

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Unfortunately I don't have any "numbers" on the extent of performance deficits in macro lenses as the working distances increase. Furthermore, I don't know if there is a source of such information from any independent testing facility, lab or publication.

Many years ago, the now defunct Modern Photography Magazine used to publish its test findings on many kinds of lenses- the were very specific in terms of all the different test areas such as sharpness, resolution, fall off, diffraction, vignetting, the presence of various aberrations, color response and more. The would create charts and graphs illustrating lens performance at each f/stop, focus points and distance for the various targets. As far as I can remember, they had one heck of a laboratory facility at their New York headquarters, which was equipped with every manner of optical bench gear and electronic analysis instrumentation. Their reporting was said to be honest and not influenced by their advertisers. I don't know if any of the phot-press, on or off line has continued this kind of reportage. I am told that D.P. Review, which I think has an online component, publishes some interesting equipment reviews but I have not had a chance to check them out as yet.

When I comment here about lens performance, I can only go by my own experience and that of some of my colleagues and reliable cohorts in the commercial photography business and a few honest suppliers who I have dealt with for a long time. Of course, every lens is not the same, even in the same focal length and category. In some lenses certain deficiencies kick in at different apertures and working distances or zoom settings. Some of the lenses I LOVE and use would probably score very poorly in a laboratory analysis but I like the mood or ambience they can help me produce. Some of my clients demand images that are "so sharp that you can see the dust on a product" while others like everything soft an mushy.

Frankley. even when I see some of the "numbers" I really can't interpret all of them into practical terms- they are the language of optical engineers. With experience, folklore and testing, you get to know which kinda glass is good for your purposes.

My favorite "instruction sheet" or specification list that came with a lens is the one that was packed with one of my favorite soft-focus portrait lenses, the Rodenstock Imagon. The thing came in a shutter with an unmarked aperture control- no f/stops marked on the scale ! There are 3 external attachable diaphragms that look like black kitchen sink strainers marked in H/stops. The formula is riddled with purposely placed aberrations and the instructions indicate that there is no real set way of using this thing and that each photographer kinda finds his or her own way by playing with the controls until they create their own method. You can't even focus the thing until you get accustomed to it- it seem to fall in and out of focus at different points on the same track- go figure??? I even attended a workshop with a well know portraitist who was a expert in this methodology and even he did quite a bit of shoulder shrugging. Once, however, you get the with the program, you can produce "Hollywood" kinda magic, that is, on a good day. I love that lens so much that I have adapted it to all my film cameras and soon to my digital gear.

That will teach me to fall asleep in my OPTICS class back in college! My prof said I was just like a bad lens- full of (mental) aberrations! Well- my high school English teacher said I shod become a doctor because I spoke like doctors write- unintelligible?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

It depends on the kind of photography you do, whether or not you are a stickler for sharpness at all focus ranges and distances and the degree of enlargement you routinely need to address in your work and, of course you budget for purchasing equipment. We know that good macro lenses are designed to perform exceptionally well at closup distances and will render great detail in small objects and subjects. We also know that they are capable of close up focusing without the addition of extension tubes or bellows or supplementary diopter lenses and we can create 1:1 or greater magnification ratios with ease of operation. Many of theses lenses, however, do not perform quite as well at as their general purpose counterparts at longer distances. The deficits they may have is sharpness may not be significant enough to worry about if you only confine you viewing to smaller monitor screens or small or moderately enlarged prints but may be more prevalent in larger images on a screen or print.

For photographers starting out on a limited budget, selecting a macro as a general purpose lens would be wise if a great deal of the photography that the gear is intended for involves close up work of highly detailed objects like flowers, insects, jewelry, coins, smsll electronic components etc. Macros also work well for dramatic close up portrait studies, portraits of pets and small children.

For landscapes, architectural subjects, 3/4, full length and group portraiture, street photography and photojournalism, as examples, I am not saying that a macro will produce images of unacceptable acutance but a high quality normal lens will be better in terms of sharpness and minimization of various aberrations that may be present.

i found this to be the case, over the years, with my digital gear, and film equipment of various formats. The only exception I experienced is a 140mm macro lens I have for my Mamiya RZ67 system. It has some kind of floating element adjustment that corrects the lens for various distances.

In my commercial work, there are many demands for extremely high resolution for greater degrees of enlargement and critical image quality for lithographic reproduction so I have to select my lenses usage to accommodate theses requirements. For much of my studio work, I have to stick with apo-quality prime lenses. For my own personal work, I am quite comfortable with macros, and zooms for general stuff.

It depends on the kind of photography you do, whet... (show quote)

Well, there you are, then, EL ... you use the 140 Macro on your RZ ... and are comfortable with macros for general stuff ... so - GO for it, E.L. !!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Unfortunately I don't have any "numbers" on the extent of performance deficits in macro lenses as the working distances increase. Furthermore, I don't know if there is a source of such information from any independent testing facility, lab or publication.

Many years ago, the now defunct Modern Photography Magazine used to publish its test findings on many kinds of lenses- the were very specific in terms of all the different test areas such as sharpness, resolution, fall off, diffraction, vignetting, the presence of various aberrations, color response and more. The would create charts and graphs illustrating lens performance at each f/stop, focus points and distance for the various targets. As far as I can remember, they had one heck of a laboratory facility at their New York headquarters, which was equipped with every manner of optical bench gear and electronic analysis instrumentation. Their reporting was said to be honest and not influenced by their advertisers. I don't know if any of the phot-press, on or off line has continued this kind of reportage. I am told that D.P. Review, which I think has an online component, publishes some interesting equipment reviews but I have not had a chance to check them out as yet.

When I comment here about lens performance, I can only go by my own experience and that of some of my colleagues and reliable cohorts in the commercial photography business and a few honest suppliers who I have dealt with for a long time. Of course, every lens is not the same, even in the same focal length and category. In some lenses certain deficiencies kick in at different apertures and working distances or zoom settings. Some of the lenses I LOVE and use would probably score very poorly in a laboratory analysis but I like the mood or ambience they can help me produce. Some of my clients demand images that are "so sharp that you can see the dust on a product" while others like everything soft an mushy.

Frankley. even when I see some of the "numbers" I really can't interpret all of them into practical terms- they are the language of optical engineers. With experience, folklore and testing, you get to know which kinda glass is good for your purposes.

My favorite "instruction sheet" or specification list that came with a lens is the one that was packed with one of my favorite soft-focus portrait lenses, the Rodenstock Imagon. The thing came in a shutter with an unmarked aperture control- no f/stops marked on the scale ! There are 3 external attachable diaphragms that look like black kitchen sink strainers marked in H/stops. The formula is riddled with purposely placed aberrations and the instructions indicate that there is no real set way of using this thing and that each photographer kinda finds his or her own way by playing with the controls until they create their own method. You can't even focus the thing until you get accustomed to it- it seem to fall in and out of focus at different points on the same track- go figure??? I even attended a workshop with a well know portraitist who was a expert in this methodology and even he did quite a bit of shoulder shrugging. Once, however, you get the with the program, you can produce "Hollywood" kinda magic, that is, on a good day. I love that lens so much that I have adapted it to all my film cameras and soon to my digital gear.

That will teach me to fall asleep in my OPTICS class back in college! My prof said I was just like a bad lens- full of (mental) aberrations! Well- my high school English teacher said I shod become a doctor because I spoke like doctors write- unintelligible?

Unfortunately I don't have any "numbers"... (show quote)

Oh, I don't agree, E.L. your comments are well-rounded. I have no problem understanding them. But, I DO have a problem trying to understand why you'd want to mess with that Rodenstock Imagon to the point you need to, to get great pictures. Isn't there something else that'd perform as well, w/o all the fiddling?

Sorry about the recent loss of Modern Photography Magazine. I do remember it well - I guess the Digital Era ushered in a whole new way of communicating, huh?

DxO Labs - has a rather large presence now, on the Net. So does DP Review, but its pages drop out a lot. CameraDecision also has many lens reviews ....

DTran

Back in the 80's I used to use the 50mm macro lens everyday. It was my job.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DTran wrote:

Back in the 80's I used to use the 50mm macro lens everyday. It was my job.

Doing what, D?

I mean - what did you use the 50 Macro for, exactly?

DTran

Chris T wrote:

Doing what, D?

I mean - what did you use the 50 Macro for, exactly?

I shot slides to make internegatives for a living. Didn't earn much so I get other job instead.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DTran wrote:

I shot slides to make internegatives for a living. Didn't earn much so I get other job instead.

Oh, I see ... did you also then make the prints, from the Internegs, or no?

DTran

Chris T wrote:

Oh, I see ... did you also then make the prints, from the Internegs, or no?

Yes but sometimes others did that. I just spent all days shoot the slides.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

My Tokina 100mm appears sharp as anything at long distance. I've got birds in flight shots which are amazing. Of course it's 100mm so not ideal for most photography, but it seems to counter the trend for macro not performing well at distance.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Chris T wrote:

Most of them are f2.8 ... so, you have the speed, for a start. Some are even better (say, f2) ... plus, you can get down to 1:1 whenever you want. Right? Make sense?

Sure. No problem.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

One thing you will need to consider, I haven't seen it mentioned here unless I missed it. Macro lenses tend to be variable aperture, so as they focus the maximum aperture will change. A 2.8 will not stay at 2.8 once you begin to focus.

SteveTog Loc: Philly

I have a Nikon 60mm Micro and a Tokina 100mm Macro. Both lenses are fine for non macro shooting, as sharp as any other primes, but do focus more slowly at times, especially when I forget to reset the 'choke.' :)

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I bought a macro 50mm f-1.8 lens and used it as my "everyday" lens for two months to get used to it. I love it, but most of the photos I do are closer ones anyway. Not great for wildlife except for bugs on flowers because I can't get close enough, but fine for broad landscapes. If I want to get the swan on the lake, I switch to a longer lens. My goal is to get in-camera shots that don't need as much cropping, so those far-away swans don't cut it with my 50mm, but are great for the pet white ducks by the boat launch area at the park that stay close.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

That is quite a statement! I would like to think you have sufficient data to show it: every macro lens from every manufacturer is not designed to focus at a distance... hummm...