Re: 50 or 100 mm
On 11 Aug 2004 at 20:28, Herb Chong wrote: > i have been checking my images and i find that i shoot at a higher > magnification with my longer macro lenses, so that is why i am seeing less > DOF. The fact is that disregarding all the repro-ratio basis of DOF calculation the apparent DOF is a far more complex issue than the simple traditional DOF calculators suggest. Factors including absolute sharpness and the plane of focus and the rendition of the OOF areas (bokeh) plus spherical and perspective distortion all affect apparent DOF. It's just not as simple and as fundamental as it's made out to be. Knowing the characteristics of your actual lenses is a far more valuable asset to any serious photographer. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
i have been checking my images and i find that i shoot at a higher magnification with my longer macro lenses, so that is why i am seeing less DOF. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:39 AM Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > Well, no. A 100mm lens gives you a smaller angle of view than a 50mm > lens. > As this concept seems to be one that is very difficult for some > people to get their heads around, I suggest that if you have a couple > of different focal lengthsm you try the following experiment.
Re: 50 or 100 mm
> The beer makes you think bigger than 1:1, but perform at about 1:3. Har! Fred
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I also agree with JCO. The difference between a 50mm and 100mm is not the DOF, assuming your object has the same size on your film or sensor. The difference is a bigger working distance for the 100mm, and a smaller angle of view, which gives you more change to get a less distracting background. On Wednesday 11 August 2004 07:52, Jens Bladt wrote: FJW> I'm sure most of us agree to th opposite. Sertainly a 100 mm gives you less FJW> DOF than a 50 mm. That's why smaller formats - lika many digital cameras - FJW> have larger DOF, provided the same angle of view is obtained by a shorter FJW> focal length. FJW> Jens FJW> FJW> Jens Bladt FJW> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt FJW> FJW> FJW> -Oprindelig meddelelse- FJW> Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> Sendt: 10. august 2004 02:49 FJW> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> Emne: RE: 50 or 100 mm FJW> FJW> FJW> W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the FJW> same magnification and aperture. FJW> focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by FJW> magnification and aperture. FJW> JCO FJW> FJW> -Original Message- FJW> From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:41 PM FJW> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW> Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm FJW> FJW> FJW> the 100mm has a shallower DOF and a greater working distance for a given FJW> magnification. as for terminology, it's convention and there is no rule. FJW> i've always seen microphotography as taken with a microscope as the lens FJW> system. FJW> FJW> Herb... FJW> - Original Message ----- FJW> From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:26 PM FJW> Subject: 50 or 100 mm FJW> FJW> FJW> > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the FJW> > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully FJW> > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, FJW> > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What FJW> FJW> > difference does it make then? FJW> > FJW> > And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life FJW> > size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that FJW> > true? FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I agree with JCO. DOF depends on the magnifcation by the lens. At typical object distances (>1m), the short focal length (e.g. 10mm) lenses of digital cameras can be used at almost constant and very small (<1:100) magnification, hence the large DOF. Arnold Jens Bladt schrieb: I'm sure most of us agree to th opposite. Sertainly a 100 mm gives you less DOF than a 50 mm. That's why smaller formats - lika many digital cameras - have larger DOF, provided the same angle of view is obtained by a shorter focal length.Jens J. C. O'Connell wrote: W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by magnification and aperture.JCO -Original Message
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Tom C wrote: Do we need to start a PGOMDML? Pentax Grumpy Old Men Discuss Mailing List? :) I thought we already had one... ;-) S
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Hi Rob, Thanks for posting those images, very nice. They illustrate the effects of different focal lenghs vey nicely. The A/50 2.8 being my favourite. Fantastic. Antonio On 11/8/04 2:12 am, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Aug 2004 at 16:35, Anders Hultman wrote: > >> If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens >> and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be >> different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? > > Practically there will be little difference (and virtually nil if you are are > looking to replace your 50mm bellows with a regular 50mm macro aside from the > operation differences). > > The long and short of it (pun intended of course) is that when using a short > FL > macro you will be relatively closer to the subject, this means that lighting > may be made more difficult, your subject may be disturbed by the proximity of > the lens and you may not be able to isolate the subject as effectively due to > the relatively wider AOV. On the positive side shake is diminished somewhat > and > the maximum apertures are fastest with short lenses so they are generally > easier to use and more forgiving when shooting hand held especially when using > available light. > > Longer lenses provide greater working distance and a tend to isolate the > subject more effectively however they are far more difficult to hand hold > effectively. I guess this is why macro lenses around 100mm are so popular as > they offer a reasonable compromise between all the factors mentioned above. > > In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes > I > set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. > All shots were made at f5.6 at a mag factor of 2x and the tripod was slid out > from the subject until focus was achieved The framing isn't perfect between > each frame but it's good enough to highlight the differences. You will see > more > background details in the 50mm shot and you will see the perspective > distortion > flattening out in the 200mm shot. > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5685.jpg A50/2.8 Macro > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5686.jpg V125/2.5 Macro > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5688.jpg A*200/4 Macro > (w/mirror > pre-fire) > > The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser > with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images > synchronously. Looking at these images again I wish I also had a 28mm (or > wider) macro lens for use in instances where working distance isn't critical. > > I'll leave these images on line for a couple of days. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I'm sure most of us agree to th opposite. Sertainly a 100 mm gives you less DOF than a 50 mm. That's why smaller formats - lika many digital cameras - have larger DOF, provided the same angle of view is obtained by a shorter focal length. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. august 2004 02:49 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: 50 or 100 mm W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by magnification and aperture. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm the 100mm has a shallower DOF and a greater working distance for a given magnification. as for terminology, it's convention and there is no rule. i've always seen microphotography as taken with a microscope as the lens system. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: 50 or 100 mm > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What > difference does it make then? > > And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life > size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that > true?
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The MICRO/MACRO thing is a marketing > term with no real hard fast definition. > JCO > It's mostly true that the consumer end of the market doesn't appreciate the definitions of MICRO and MACRO. As an illustration, for many years Nikon has labelled its macro lenses as Micro-Nikkors, when it is patently obvious that they are intended neither for microphotography or photomicrography. There are definitions, but the crossover points between one type of photography and the next are blurred. PHOTOMICROGRAPHY is photography at extreme ranges of magnication, eg. through a microscope, or with specialised objectives such as Zeiss Proxars. MICROPHOTOGRAPHY is photography in extreme ranges of reduction, such as the microdot of spy movie notoriety. PHOTOMACROGRAPHY is the correct term for what is commonly but erroneously called macrophotography. It is generally accepted, as others have noted, to fall within the range of 0.5X to 10X magnification. MACROPHOTOGRAPHY is something I can't readily define, because my photography college notes are long gone. Rest assured that something about it is big, I vaguely remember that it involves very, very big sheets of sensitized material (and thus opposite to microphotography). I also suspect that the last usage is for all purposes obselete, and the word "macrophotography" has been popularly transferred to the definition of "photomacrography". Just my curmudgeonly contribution in the absence of anything on this matter from Greywolf. regards, Anthony Farr
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Not all macro photos are artistic renditions of flowers and bugs. In my distant past I worked with scientists in the back-rooms of a museum, to photograph biological specimens, fossils and more. Not only did we include a scale in the frame, but we also used a range of fixed magnification (or reduction) ratios, to enable easier batch printing later in the darkroom. Had we framed each shot for best composition on an ad hoc basis, then each and every print would have needed individual scaling under the enlarger. Way back in my ancient past I briefly worked a humungous microfilm camera, a 35mm (unperforated rolls) Fuji. Here too, only a few specific reduction ratios were ever used, and the camera was programmed to go straight to those reductions, skipping over the infinite range of settings between each preset ratio. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing > scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. > It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close > enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us > worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: > does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro > that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro > that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully > 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension > tube. > Just my two cents > Vic > >
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Rob Studdert: In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes I set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. (...) The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images synchronously. Thank you for the information and the comparison pictures. I'm going away for a short trip now, but I've downloaded and saved the pictures and will have a thorough look at them when I get back! anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > I've tried that a few times, never worked, always thought it was just > the beer. The beer makes you think bigger than 1:1, but perform at about 1:3. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. This is what I have heard. William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I personally don't care if you believe me. I don't just make this stuff up. But if you expect me to explain optical design theories in a few sentences you arent being realistic. If you want a hint the reason the symmetricals are so much better for 1:1 is many of the optical errors completely cancel out at 1:1 unlike an unsymmetrical design. Some of the very finest Apo process lenses for 1:1 are only four to six element symmetricals. Even the 4 element ones are legendary and go back many years. As for the *istD being unable to tell the difference between very good and really great lenses, that just shows the sensor isnt very good it doesn't prove the lenses are the same or "just as good" for someone who wants to get the most out of 35mm format by using extremely fine grain films. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm On 10 Aug 2004 at 21:10, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I just told you in last post, late model 6 element german enlarging > lenses on a bellows. There is nothing "Stupid" about stating the > facts. If you want to get the "best" out of 35mm or current digital > you still need the best lenses. We werent talking "good enough" we > were talking what is better and best! For your information I've shot a high contrast test chart with the A50/2.8 + *ist D and from f2.8 to f16 the images are indistinguishable, at f22 there is a hint of loss of sharpness. These are the facts. So have much more resolution is required? > If you want to do 1:1, the best lenses are the ones > designed for 1:1, not the pseudo zooms. I'm sorry > if I am bursting your bubble but so be it. You're are not bursting my bubble, maybe if you could substantiate your claims with some examples your rhetoric would be more believable? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
> Not intending to single anyone out... ;-) Fred
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 20:26, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > One anecdote does not science make. Just because > you are very satisfied with a given lens doesn't mean > there isnt something better out there that will > perform better given toughter test conditions like much > higher resolution films/sensors and/or more flare prone shooting > conditons. I suggest you try some of the newer > 6 element MC enlarging lenses at close range with a bellows & > really fine grain film for comparison and also > with some really bright reflections in the image > to test the flare resistance. If you are satisfied > that is all that really matters but it doesn't mean > that is as good as it gets. Also, if you are into > 1:1 is is a known fact that the symmetrical designs > are much better for 1:1 than any non symmetrical > could ever hope to achieve. They make lenses JUST > FOR 1:1 that suck at infinity wide open but will crush everything > else at that 1:1 magnification. John this is just getting stupid now. I suspect most people here are talking real-world and Pentax and likely K-mount and screw at the peripheries. I (like most other people here I assume) couldn't be bothered with too much BS to get what is generally a very acceptable image from my K mount lenses. Pentax lenses with FREE elements are high contrast and damn near flare free and provide more sharpness than the *ist D and most all readily available mainstream films can resolve, what more do you want? How many late macro lenses have you used? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
One anecdote does not science make. Just because you are very satisfied with a given lens doesn't mean there isnt something better out there that will perform better given toughter test conditions like much higher resolution films/sensors and/or more flare prone shooting conditons. I suggest you try some of the newer 6 element MC enlarging lenses at close range with a bellows & really fine grain film for comparison and also with some really bright reflections in the image to test the flare resistance. If you are satisfied that is all that really matters but it doesn't mean that is as good as it gets. Also, if you are into 1:1 is is a known fact that the symmetrical designs are much better for 1:1 than any non symmetrical could ever hope to achieve. They make lenses JUST FOR 1:1 that suck at infinity wide open but will crush everything else at that 1:1 magnification. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, > > William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > > > there is absolutely nothing wrong with > >the lens design. > > > > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something "wrong" > with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. The optical > designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly every parameter > and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros have "absolutely nothing wrong" > with them is going a little to far IMHO. Adding all those extra > elements to achieve wider focus range is going to improve some > parameters most notably infinity performance at wider apertures but at > the same time degrade > others > like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the > designers and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to > the customer > or they would not have done it. Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Or simply buy one of those Canon/Minolta super macro lenses, just don't look at the price tag. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan If you want bigger than 1;1 you should be reversing the lens anyway. William Robb _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 16:35, Anders Hultman wrote: > If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens > and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be > different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? Practically there will be little difference (and virtually nil if you are are looking to replace your 50mm bellows with a regular 50mm macro aside from the operation differences). The long and short of it (pun intended of course) is that when using a short FL macro you will be relatively closer to the subject, this means that lighting may be made more difficult, your subject may be disturbed by the proximity of the lens and you may not be able to isolate the subject as effectively due to the relatively wider AOV. On the positive side shake is diminished somewhat and the maximum apertures are fastest with short lenses so they are generally easier to use and more forgiving when shooting hand held especially when using available light. Longer lenses provide greater working distance and a tend to isolate the subject more effectively however they are far more difficult to hand hold effectively. I guess this is why macro lenses around 100mm are so popular as they offer a reasonable compromise between all the factors mentioned above. In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes I set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. All shots were made at f5.6 at a mag factor of 2x and the tripod was slid out from the subject until focus was achieved The framing isn't perfect between each frame but it's good enough to highlight the differences. You will see more background details in the 50mm shot and you will see the perspective distortion flattening out in the 200mm shot. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5685.jpg A50/2.8 Macro http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5686.jpg V125/2.5 Macro http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5688.jpg A*200/4 Macro (w/mirror pre-fire) The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images synchronously. Looking at these images again I wish I also had a 28mm (or wider) macro lens for use in instances where working distance isn't critical. I'll leave these images on line for a couple of days. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, > > William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > > > there is absolutely nothing wrong with > >the lens design. > > > > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something > "wrong" with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. > The optical designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly > every parameter and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros > have "absolutely nothing wrong" with them is going a little > to far IMHO. Adding all those extra elements to achieve > wider focus range is going to improve some parameters most notably > infinity performance at wider apertures but at the same time degrade > others > like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the > designers > and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to the customer > or they would not have done it. Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > William Robb: > > >Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the > >original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a > >bellows. > >For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more > >magnification than the 100 at any given extension. > > You mean if I both use the built-in macro capabilities *and* a bellows too? Yes. > > Mostly, 1:1 is what I want, actually, or else many things I shoot > won't fit in the frame anymore, but it's good to have the option to > magnify more. With my current setup I can go to slightly less than > 3:1. If you want bigger than 1;1 you should be reversing the lens anyway. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Proof that even God has bad days. John On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:18:29 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/8/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, offered: If you need the AOV of a 50mm, the 100mm is absolutely useless. If you need the working distance of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. This is why God invented zooms :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On 10/8/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, offered: >If you need the AOV of a 50mm, >the 100mm is absolutely useless. > >If you need the working distance >of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. This is why God invented zooms :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > there is absolutely nothing wrong with >the lens design. > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something "wrong" with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. The optical designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly every parameter and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros have "absolutely nothing wrong" with them is going a little to far IMHO. Adding all those extra elements to achieve wider focus range is going to improve some parameters most notably infinity performance at wider apertures but at the same time degrade others like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the designers and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to the customer or they would not have done it. JCO
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "John C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? > Make the comparisons and get back to me. My SMC Takumar bellows 100 doesn't see much use since I bought the 100 macro. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > > > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > > are incredibly good lenses. > > I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the > > A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens > > performance throughout the focal range. > > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > > lens design. > > You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL What was I thinking? William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
the magnification spec is so you can compare the closeup capabilities of lenses of different makes and models and focal lengths directly. The magnification scale on the lenses also allows you to calculate the exact exposure compensation needed with manual exposure settings. those are both "real good reasons" to know the magnification/reproduction ratios. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension tube. Just my two cents Vic
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension tube. Just my two cents Vic
Re: 50 or 100 mm
If you are going to use a bellows, the 50 is more useable. If you want a straight macro to use without bellows, the 100 mm gives you more distance which is very valuable for all sorts of reasons, including room to use reflectors, flashes etc. With a 50mm you're in so close that the shadow from either you looking into the camera or the camera itself can cause problems... Vic
Re: 50 or 100 mm
William Robb: Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a bellows. For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more magnification than the 100 at any given extension. You mean if I both use the built-in macro capabilities *and* a bellows too? Mostly, 1:1 is what I want, actually, or else many things I shoot won't fit in the frame anymore, but it's good to have the option to magnify more. With my current setup I can go to slightly less than 3:1. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: 50 or 100 mm
J. C. O'Connell: I think the question was 50 or 100mm. Go go the 100 if you can afford it the working distance for the same results makes all the difference in the world... Vic It will not give the same results as the 50mm, it is a 100mm after all now isnt it? Once you get near 1:1 the 100mm has same AOV of a 200mm at infinity which is very narrow to say the least compared to a "normal" lens. Bottom line is they are very different lenses so the 100mm is not better than a 50mm, just different. Ok, the reason I asked was to learn more before I eventually buy one of the two new Pentax lenses. I still really haven't fathomed what the practical difference would be between the two. If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? http://anders.hultman.nu/album/al/makro This is flowers, berries, insects and ticks at approx 1:1 magnification, and a distance from front lens to subject of about 75 mm. The first six pictures are taken last year with an ME, the last eight are taken with the *istD. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Hi Rob, since I am a macro fan, I have indeed a lot of macros. I plan for long a test of them but don't find the time. The oldest one I own is the SMC-M 4/100mm macro. Is this old enough? Best regards, Hans. --- "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:54, John C. O'Connell wrote: > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? We've engaged in this debate a few times here but I've never seen any proof of the claims. Lens design has come a long way in 30 years, surely they have made some headway in performance? Unfortunately I don't have any old lenses and I suspect you don't have any new ones, so does anyone have both and are willing to execute some rudimentary tests? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 _ 23a mail
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:56, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We are talking optical not mechanical design here arent we? > What does the mount have to do with it. You certainly don't > think that the mount has anything to do with my comments do > you? John I was yanking yer chain. Lighten up. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:54, John C. O'Connell wrote: > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? We've engaged in this debate a few times here but I've never seen any proof of the claims. Lens design has come a long way in 30 years, surely they have made some headway in performance? Unfortunately I don't have any old lenses and I suspect you don't have any new ones, so does anyone have both and are willing to execute some rudimentary tests? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
We are talking optical not mechanical design here arent we? What does the mount have to do with it. You certainly don't think that the mount has anything to do with my comments do you? -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the > day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for > superior lens performance throughout the focal range. > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > lens design. You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better if you use the prime for what it was designed for? JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length varies > and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- zoom macros. I > believe the switch occurred when they went from F4 designs to F2.8 > designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens that "does" Macro is a > "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the > "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs > optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the designs > of modern high end enlarging lenses. > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens performance throughout the focal range. As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lens design. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > are incredibly good lenses. > I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the > A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens > performance throughout the focal range. > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > lens design. You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length > varies and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- > zoom macros. I believe the switch occurred when they went from > F4 designs to F2.8 designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens > that "does" Macro is a "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the > "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs > optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the > designs of modern high end enlarging lenses. > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens performance throughout the focal range. As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lens design. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Why? 50mm and 100mm do vastly different things. > > If you need the AOV of a 50mm, > the 100mm is absolutely useless. > > If you need the working distance > of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. > > Neither one is better than the other for everything > anymore than a regular non-macro 100mm lens is better > for everything than a regular non-macro 50mm lens. Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a bellows. For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more magnification than the 100 at any given extension. William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length varies and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- zoom macros. I believe the switch occurred when they went from F4 designs to F2.8 designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens that "does" Macro is a "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the designs of modern high end enlarging lenses. JCO -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > -Original Message- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > > At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 > all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance > which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the > FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the > focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at > 1:1, > > the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 > is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due > to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated > classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really > general purpose lenses. Is FREE pseudo-zoom? Are you saying that the prime Pentax macro lenses are not really macro? I rearranged Arnold's post so you can read it again. Kostas
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Why? 50mm and 100mm do vastly different things. If you need the AOV of a 50mm, the 100mm is absolutely useless. If you need the working distance of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. Neither one is better than the other for everything anymore than a regular non-macro 100mm lens is better for everything than a regular non-macro 50mm lens. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm Give me a 100 any day. Just my opinion Vic
RE: 50 or 100 mm
> -Original Message- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > > At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 > all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance > which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the > FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the > focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, > > the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is > near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to > the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated > classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really > general > purpose lenses. Is FREE pseudo-zoom? Are you saying that the prime Pentax macro lenses are not really macro? I rearranged Arnold's post so you can read it again. Kostas
RE: 50 or 100 mm
We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really general purpose lenses. I use normal (infintity optimized) lenses for landscape and dedicated macros for closeup not a single pseudo-zoom type lens that does both. Regarding "working distance", how is that defined? I always thought of it as distance from front of lens barrel to subject which Is NOT 4X focal length at 1:1. Front of lens barrel to subject is less than 2X focal length at 1:1. Film plane to subject is 4X focal length at 1:1. JCO -Original Message- From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: >If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but >nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with >a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too >close. JCO > >
Re: 50 or 100 mm
At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too close. JCO
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Give me a 100 any day. Just my opinion Vic
RE: 50 or 100 mm
It will not give the same results as the 50mm, it is a 100mm after all now isnt it? Once you get near 1:1 the 100mm has same AOV of a 200mm at infinity which is very narrow to say the least compared to a "normal" lens. Bottom line is they are very different lenses so the 100mm is not better than a 50mm, just different. If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too close. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm I think the question was 50 or 100mm. Go go the 100 if you can afford it the working distance for the same results makes all the difference in the world... Vic
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I think the question was 50 or 100mm. Go go the 100 if you can afford it the working distance for the same results makes all the difference in the world... Vic
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Aperture= focal ratio = F-number, i.e. F8 , a 50mm lens @F8 @ 1:1 RR has same DOF as 100mm lens @ F8 @ 1:1 RR. (RR=Reproduction ratio) JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm define aperture. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the > same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it > is determined solely by magnification and aperture.
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > define aperture. Ah, a tricky question Very inscrutable of you, Mr. Chong. William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Aperture= focal ratio = F-number, i.e. F8 , a 50mm lens @F8 @ 1:1 RR has same DOF as 100mm lens @ F8 @ 1:1 RR. (RR=Reproduction ratio) JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm define aperture. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the > same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it > is determined solely by magnification and aperture.
Re: 50 or 100 mm
define aperture. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the > same magnification and aperture. > focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by > magnification and aperture.
RE: 50 or 100 mm
W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by magnification and aperture. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm the 100mm has a shallower DOF and a greater working distance for a given magnification. as for terminology, it's convention and there is no rule. i've always seen microphotography as taken with a microscope as the lens system. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: 50 or 100 mm > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What > difference does it make then? > > And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life > size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that > true?
Re: 50 or 100 mm
the 100mm has a shallower DOF and a greater working distance for a given magnification. as for terminology, it's convention and there is no rule. i've always seen microphotography as taken with a microscope as the lens system. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: 50 or 100 mm > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? > What difference does it make then? > > And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life > size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that > true?
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > > The MICRO/MACRO thing is a marketing > term with no real hard fast definition. > It's gotten pretty fuzzy lately. Macro used to be anything from about 1/4 life size to 10x life size. Micro was more magnification than 10x. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > > I'm not sure that I follow you here. How will it affect the picture > if I use the 50mm or the 100mm lens? Will I get the same thing but > from different distances? It will affect you the same way changing focal length with any scene type affects you. > > So, my question really is which of the two new Pentax macro lenses I > should get if I wanted the largest possible magnification. They're > both 1:1 but is it "the same 1:1" so to speak? I'm only used to using > the bellows, and with that it really is a difference between a 50mm > lens and a longer one. 1:1 is what either lens will give you unaided. Toss a bellows on as well, and the 50mm will give more magnification, although working distances can become short enough as to make lighting difficult.
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 1:34, Anders Hultman wrote: > So, my question really is which of the two new Pentax macro lenses I > should get if I wanted the largest possible magnification. They're > both 1:1 but is it "the same 1:1" so to speak? I'm only used to using > the bellows, and with that it really is a difference between a 50mm > lens and a longer one. 1:1 means just that, a 5mm subject will be rendered 5mm on the 67/645/35mm/APS/*istD imaging surface. > With the bellows, the magnification setting effectively determines > the working distance. The DOF is extremely short, and I have to focus > by moving the whole camera back and forth. Practically working distance is tied with AOV, ie a short macro will give you more view of areas behind the subject, a long macro lens at the same film magnification will tend to isolate the subject to a greater extent. A longer working distance will allow you to light the subject artificially a little easier as equipment shadows are less likely. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Mark Roberts: Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What difference does it make then? The only difference is that fills the whole frame of an ist-D at 1:1 wouldn't fill the frame of a film SLR at 1:1. They'd both have the same magnification ratio (1:1 of course!) but on the film camera there'd be more empty area around the subject. I meant what the difference would be between 50 and 100 mm, not between film and digital :-) anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50 or 100 mm
alex wetmore: 100mm gives you a longer working distance, but reduced depth of field. The longer working distance can be really helpful when you are trying to get enough light on the subject (so that the camera or your head isn't shading it). Depth of field is always a challenge with macro photography though, so the little increase from a 50 could probably help. But the picture framing would be more or less the same? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: 50 or 100 mm
J. C. O'Connell: Focal length differences are the same for macro as for regular shooting: a 100mm is going to give only half the angle of view as a 50mm, but there is one thing you have to keep in mind though and that is the effective focal length DOUBLES by the time you get to 1:1 vs. infinity, so a 50mm at 1:1 gives same angle of view as a 100mm at infinity. The other thing that focal length affects is the working distance. A 100mm lens at 1:1 will give you 400mm from subject to film plane while a 50mm will only give you 200mm from subject to film plane at 1:1. I'm not sure that I follow you here. How will it affect the picture if I use the 50mm or the 100mm lens? Will I get the same thing but from different distances? For comparison, the way I do macro shots now is that I have this bellows: http://anders.hultman.nu/kamera/makro-b.jpeg When I connect a 50mm lens, it gives approx. 1:1 on the stort end and about 3:1 on the long end. It gives me sharp image at 75mm and 50mm from the front lens, respectively. When I connect a 200mm lens, I have to back out quite long to get sharp images. More than half a meter. With the bellows on the short end and the lens focused the closest possible, the distance from front lens to subject is 600mm. The magnification don't get anywhere near 1:1, though. Rather approx. 1:2.3. So, my question really is which of the two new Pentax macro lenses I should get if I wanted the largest possible magnification. They're both 1:1 but is it "the same 1:1" so to speak? I'm only used to using the bellows, and with that it really is a difference between a 50mm lens and a longer one. With the bellows, the magnification setting effectively determines the working distance. The DOF is extremely short, and I have to focus by moving the whole camera back and forth. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the >difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully >understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, >but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? >What difference does it make then? The only difference is that fills the whole frame of an ist-D at 1:1 wouldn't fill the frame of a film SLR at 1:1. They'd both have the same magnification ratio (1:1 of course!) but on the film camera there'd be more empty area around the subject. >And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life >size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that >true? My experience is there really aren't any set definitions for this kind of thing. Kodak tried to get everyone to agree on their own definitions of "micro", "macro" etc a long time ago and they were soundly ignored. I consider "micro" photography to be images of *much* greater than 1:1 magnification. Using a microscope, basically. But that's just me :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Anders Hultman wrote: > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? > What difference does it make then? 100mm gives you a longer working distance, but reduced depth of field. The longer working distance can be really helpful when you are trying to get enough light on the subject (so that the camera or your head isn't shading it). Depth of field is always a challenge with macro photography though, so the little increase from a 50 could probably help. The 16-45/4 has a much closer close focusing distance than advertised by Pentax and I haven't found myself desiring a macro lens since picking it up. I also own the Tamron 90/2.5 (MF) and used to use it a lot with my film cameras, but I hardly use it with the *ist D. It is a heavy beast though, and the new D-FA lenses look more reasonable. alex
Re: 50 or 100 mm
The dictionary definition clearly indicates that macro merely means large. That is a close up. In photography it usually just means larger than can be made with a regular lens. Nothing mystic about it at all. Diffinitions very, but generally macro photography is in the range of 10:1 to 1:10. macro- macro- or macr- prefix 1. Large: macronucleus. 2. Long: macrobiotics. 3. Inclusive: macroinstruction. [Greek makro-, from makros, large.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. Anders Hultman wrote: Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What difference does it make then? And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that true? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt! -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Focal length differences are the same for macro as for regular shooting: a 100mm is going to give only half the angle of view as a 50mm, but there is one thing you have to keep in mind though and that is the effective focal length DOUBLES by the time you get to 1:1 vs. infinity, so a 50mm at 1:1 gives same angle of view as a 100mm at infinity. The other thing that focal length affects is the working distance. A 100mm lens at 1:1 will give you 400mm from subject to film plane while a 50mm will only give you 200mm from subject to film plane at 1:1. The MICRO/MACRO thing is a marketing term with no real hard fast definition. JCO -Original Message- From: Anders Hultman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 50 or 100 mm Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What difference does it make then? And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that true? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
50 or 100 mm
Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What difference does it make then? And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that true? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
