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
Tom C wrote:
Do we need to start a PGOMDML? Pentax Grumpy Old Men Discuss Mailing
List? :)
I thought we already had one... ;-)
S
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
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
The beer makes you think bigger than 1:1, but perform at about 1:3.
Har!
Fred
: 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.
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
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
:[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
Give me a 100 any day. Just my opinion
Vic
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
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
-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
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
, 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
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
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,
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
- 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
- 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
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
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
Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. g
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
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
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
Not intending to single anyone out...
;-)
Fred
, 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
- 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
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan
Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm
Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. g
This is what I have heard.
William Robb
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,
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
- 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
://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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
be between 50 and 100 mm, not between
film and digital :-)
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!
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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
