Macro lens. What to look for?

[tyler_h]

Magnification saying something like 0.19x;
1/0.19 = 5.26

So to state it similarly as 1:1 it is 1:5.26

 

[Hardrock]

Magnification saying something like 0.19x;
1/0.19 = 5.26

So to state it similarly as 1:1 it is 1:5.26

That makes more sense! I was always curious how the 0.19x related to 1:1. Thanks.

 

[tyler_h]

Always a problem with any numeric things; far too many ways the represent the same thing, and a different one is picked depending on how well it will be interpreted by the consumer

 

[jake337]

For Rings and jewelry shouldn't we be suggesting some sort of tilt shift lens so that shallow DOF may become less of a binding issue.

 

[tyler_h]

For Rings and jewelry shouldn't we be suggesting some sort of tilt shift lens so that shallow DOF may become less of a binding issue.

The TS-E 90 f/2.8 has a decent max magnification; 0.29, but that is still 1:3.45. It would be improved with a teleconverter but this would make an expensive option to still not give very high magnification.

 

[Overread]

Good advice has already been given but I'll add a few points:

1) Tiltshift - its a good option, but very pricey for a good one, plus you need to add either teleconverters and/or extension tubes to get the magnification factor up. For wedding rings they are pretty big and won't be too hard, for insects you'd need more magnification gain. The other problem is that you then have 2 things to learn - close focusing and tiltshift balance.
I'd personally go for a regular macro - then consider exotics later on such as tiltshift/MPE etc..

2) Extension tubes - avoid canons offerings, they are way way way overpriced for what you get. Modern Kenko extension tubes are just as good (several people I know who own both can't tell them apart build quality wise at all - and one wondered if the canon are just rebranded kenko!)

3) Focal length wise I'd second the 100mm macro option. Sigma and Tokina make 105mm macros which are solid in build and image quality - Tamron makes their 90mm whilst Canon have their 100mm and 100mm L. In general you won't tell them apart image quality wise (you can in studio tests compare them, but the differences are very minor and subject to copy variation). Secondly the AF speed of all is going to be slower than regular lenses, but the canons tend to be the faster over (the L is probably the fastest AF you can get currently for a canon macro lens).

4) IS - canons 100mm L is a hybrid IS so it has more effect at 1:1 distances than the Nikon VR macro model and I've read some very good reports on its overall performance - it won't change the game totally, but its certainly something to consider - esp (as said) for use of the lens outside of just macro work.

5) As far as I can tell focal length has pretty much no effective change on the depth of field at the 1:1 distance - if there is a difference then chances are you'd only see it between a super short (35mm) and a super long (180mm + 2*TC) lenses and even then it would be marginal - differences within the more common 60-180mm are so tiny (if present) that its not worth worrying about. What will change is background rendering - the longer focal length options will render with more background blurring than the shorter lenses.

 

[Derrel]

5) As far as I can tell focal length has pretty much no effective change on the depth of field at the 1:1 distance - if there is a difference then chances are you'd only see it between a super short (35mm) and a super long (180mm + 2*TC) lenses and even then it would be marginal - differences within the more common 60-180mm are so tiny (if present) that its not worth worrying about. What will change is background rendering - the longer focal length options will render with more background blurring than the shorter lenses.

Yeah, it is a very strange,strange fact, but at 1:1 magnification, and at a little bit lower magnification, focal length seems to have basically, no discernable effect of depth of field in real-world tests. It seems that **magnification** is the determining factor. I once did a test using a 60mm, 90mm,and 180mm macro lens, and photographed a small (miniature sized) Rolleiflex digital camera, and the images from the 60,the 90,and the 180 all appeared to have basically, the same depth of field.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

+1

Kenko extension tubes will macro shoot a ring splendidly.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Kenko extension with what kind of lens?

 

[Overread]

Your 50mm f1.4 would work well with a set of tubes - that or the 24-70mm would give you more than enough when paired with a set of Kenko AF extension tubes. Chances are you would not even need all the tube length either, since rings are quite big and most ring shots at weddings are more closeups rather than pure macro.

On the ring front the above combos would work well and with good lighting control give you some great shots. For insect work a 50mm + 65mm of extension tubes (ie a full kenko set) easily gives you just over 1:1 magnification - however its working distance is very small and, whilst not impossible, it does make insect work far more of a challenge to get used to - it can also make lighting control that bit harder as well.

If you were just after the ring shots then the tubes would be my advice - but as you want to get into insects and macro in general, if you have the money and the inspiration/desire then I'd go for the macro lens

 

[dallasimagery]

1) Tiltshift - its a good option, but very pricey for a good one,

I don't like the effects TS lenses give - they often make photos look quite odd.

4) IS - canons 100mm L is a hybrid IS so it has more effect at 1:1 distances than the Nikon VR macro model and I've read some very good reports on its overall performance - it won't change the game totally, but its certainly something to consider

Do you seriously just find the 100mm "very good"? It's probably the best lense I've ever used, period, and the sharpest. Even Tony Hoffer calls it "the sharpest lense ever". I would second the 100mm, and even third it It's simply... amazing. It's my favorite lense, and I've had plenty

 

[Derrel]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro (Full Format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis


At f/2.8 and f/4, the Canon 100mm-L macro has only good to very good resolution at the borders and extreme edges of the frame, and the same sub-par performance extends to f/4, and even f/5.6. Only once stopped down to f/11 does the Canon 100mm-L even out across the frame. This lens is characterized by high central resolution, but much lower edge and extreme edge resolution.


Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
At f/2.8 the Sigma 150mm macro turns in an exceptionally good, even performance across the frame, resolving 3459,3332,and 3216 LW/PH at center/border/extreme respectively. Compare that to the Canon 100mm-L at 3391,2782,2735 center/border/extreme. The Sigma is resolving just ever so slightly fewer line widths per picture height at the extreme EDGE of the frame at f/2.8 than the Canon can muster in the very center of the field at the same f/stop. That's what a lens designer calls "getting your A$$ kicked."


At the critical f/stops of f/8 and f/11, the Sigma 150mm is kicking the Canon's proverbial ASS, all across the frame, by over 500 LW/PH at each part of the frame. At f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11, the Sigma is performing BETTER across the entire frame than the Canon is. At f/2.8 and f/4 the Canon has MARKEDLY poorer resolving power at the border and extreme edge of the frame, and the same poor performance holds true at f/5.6, and at f/8 the extreme edge of the frame is only marginally bettwr than the borders, and still far,far weaker than the center resolution.


If somebody claims the Canon 100mm-L macro is "one of the sharpest lenses" he's ever used....well...he certainly hasn't used the Sigma 150mm macro, which is a markedly higher-resolving, lower-distortion, and lower vignetting lens than the Canon 100mm-L macro. And the Sigma is more-cosnistent across its entire range of f/stops, is markedly better at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, and is well...simply a much,much better performing lens than the Canon 100mm L macro.

 

[Overread]

Eh the 150mm is ok - I'm fairly sure my Sigma70mm macro is a bit sharper at the f13 end and my Canon MPE65mm is mostly unbeatable (except with its angular aperture blades ). I've not really put the Tokina 35mm macro into a side by side test, but in general its performance is on par (as in I've not noticed it lacking in my shots).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/sets/72157623359678512/
My little test - no fancy charts though - just big pictures of coins


The lesson to take home here is that in the macro world there really are no bad performers from the true macro prime lenses, no matter which company you go with they are all pretty much excellent optics and after editing and presentation on a medium (prints/digital display) many of the small differences are mostly not even noticeable.
I'm not against tests, I like to know how stuff performs at a purely technical level, but I also try to temper that with real world context. As such I rate them all pretty much on par optically - the bigger differences are in handholding and operation as well as features offered - those are the big differences you'll notice in the field when shooting.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Do you seriously just find the 100mm "very good"? It's probably the best lense I've ever used, period, and the sharpest. Even Tony Hoffer calls it "the sharpest lense ever". I would second the 100mm, and even third it It's simply... amazing. It's my favorite lense, and I've had plenty

I highly doubt Tony would say "lense" instead of "lens" just kidding... i had to do it because you quoted him LOL.

 

[jake337]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro (Full Format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis


At f/2.8 and f/4, the Canon 100mm-L macro has only good to very good resolution at the borders and extreme edges of the frame, and the same sub-par performance extends to f/4, and even f/5.6. Only once stopped down to f/11 does the Canon 100mm-L even out across the frame. This lens is characterized by high central resolution, but much lower edge and extreme edge resolution.


Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
At f/2.8 the Sigma 150mm macro turns in an exceptionally good, even performance across the frame, resolving 3459,3332,and 3216 LW/PH at center/border/extreme respectively. Compare that to the Canon 100mm-L at 3391,2782,2735 center/border/extreme. The Sigma is resolving just ever so slightly fewer line widths per picture height at the extreme EDGE of the frame at f/2.8 than the Canon can muster in the very center of the field at the same f/stop. That's what a lens designer calls "getting your A$$ kicked."


At the critical f/stops of f/8 and f/11, the Sigma 150mm is kicking the Canon's proverbial ASS, all across the frame, by over 500 LW/PH at each part of the frame. At f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11, the Sigma is performing BETTER across the entire frame than the Canon is. At f/2.8 and f/4 the Canon has MARKEDLY poorer resolving power at the border and extreme edge of the frame, and the same poor performance holds true at f/5.6, and at f/8 the extreme edge of the frame is only marginally bettwr than the borders, and still far,far weaker than the center resolution.


If somebody claims the Canon 100mm-L macro is "one of the sharpest lenses" he's ever used....well...he certainly hasn't used the Sigma 150mm macro, which is a markedly higher-resolving, lower-distortion, and lower vignetting lens than the Canon 100mm-L macro. And the Sigma is more-cosnistent across its entire range of f/stops, is markedly better at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, and is well...simply a much,much better performing lens than the Canon 100mm L macro.

No comparisons available on Full frame for this lens but the Tokina 100mm f2.8 atx pro d macro scored better than the sigma 150mm across the board on resolution(aps-c). These were on a 8mp canon.


These are just numbers though... I would like to see a nikon FX comparison.