I only own older extension only macros; from what I gather from
reading, zoomy zoom macros suffer no light falloff when close-focusing
but may lose a bit of focal length. Sounds like a good trade-off to
me.
-Lon
Rob Studdert wrote:
I find using macro lenses at non-macro distances most often more
On 15 Nov 2004 at 6:25, Lon Williamson wrote:
I only own older extension only macros; from what I gather from
reading, zoomy zoom macros suffer no light falloff when close-focusing
but may lose a bit of focal length. Sounds like a good trade-off to
me.
I'd say that's a pretty accurate
On 15 Nov 2004 at 7:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Unless the 125mm zoomed out to 62.5mm at 1:1, it is
going to need exposure compensation.
Of course you are correct, I was simply drawing a relative comparison to
another lens.
What you have is essentially
a variable aperture zoom with that
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
On 15 Nov 2004 at 6:25, Lon Williamson wrote:
I only own older extension only macros; from what I gather from
reading, zoomy zoom macros suffer no light falloff when
close-focusing but may lose a bit of focal length. Sounds like
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
On 15 Nov 2004 at 7:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Unless the 125mm zoomed out to 62.5mm at 1:1, it is
going to need exposure compensation.
Of course you are correct, I was simply drawing
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
What you have is essentially
a variable aperture zoom with that lens, how do
do you know what exposure compensations to use?
You don't, TTL calculates things for you.
Kostas
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
On 15 Nov 2004 at 7:23, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Unless the 125mm zoomed out to 62.5mm at 1:1, it is
going to need exposure compensation.
Of course you are correct, I was simply drawing
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
TTL is fine but a lot of people do
Macro with strobes (myself included),
and I am not aware of any SLR cameras
that can do TTL flash metering.
I probably don't understand what you mean by TTL flash metering. All
Pentax AF, the Super-A and the LX do
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
At least with a fixed focal length and aperture you
can calculate the correct compensations based on
magnification or bellows extension, but with
variable aperture those techniques won't work...
Your
, November 15, 2004 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
TTL is fine but a lot of people do
Macro with strobes (myself included),
and I am not aware of any SLR cameras
that can do TTL flash metering.
I probably don't
and not as good when you need
maximum light
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
Most SLR cameras made in the last 25 years or so can do TTL flash
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
As for indisputable proof, my burden isnt
any greater than yours and is based on the
simple concept that lenses that do less can
do what little they do better that lenses that do
more (prime vs zoom
Shel Belinkoff stopped playing with his cameras long enough to write:
The macro gods have been very, very good to me, and I have a couple of fine
Pentax lenses. While preparing to do a close-up of a three dimensional
object the thought crossed my mind that a macro lens is best suited for
flat
The major difference between the macro lenses and the non-macro
lenses is that the macro lenses allow you to focus a lot closer.
Agreed. For most of us (who usually would be shooting small and/or
close-up 3-dimensional objects, and not just pieces of paper, for
example), I suspect that the
Using the A100/2.8 macro and the K105/2.8 on the same subject,
there didn't seem to be any observable difference between the two
photos. Under what circumstances would a macro lens be the better
choice, and when might an ordinary lens be a better option?
I really like the A 100/2.8 Macro a
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:20 AM
To: Tom Reese
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
The major difference between the macro lenses and the non-macro lenses
is that the macro lenses allow you to focus a lot closer.
Agreed. For most of us (who usually would
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
Using the A100/2.8 macro and the K105/2.8 on the same subject, there
didn't seem to be any observable difference between the two photos.
Under what circumstances would a macro lens be the better choice, and
when might an ordinary lens
Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences don't
seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some situations, not at
all in others. Camera was mounted on a Pentax macro copy stand, same
camera used, same film, and a refconverter used @ 2X to check focusing
, November 13, 2004 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences
don't seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some
situations, not at all in others. Camera was mounted on a Pentax macro
copy
i bet, the differences at 3x5 print wouldn't have been obvious either.
best,
mishka
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:33:46 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
While there may be some differences that become obvious at some point, they
were not obvious in a 5x7 print. I don't think the
I don't agree
Thanks for your disagreements, JCO - g.
Fred
And the point of your erudite comment is?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/13/2004 8:04:37 AM
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
i bet, the differences at 3x5 print wouldn't have been obvious either.
best,
mishka
On Sat
J. C. O'Connell objected to my opinion and responded:
I don't agree (1):
The major differences between macro lenses and non-macro
lenses is that macro lenses have special optical designs
which optimize near field usage in the range of 1:1 to 1:10
(approx). They have different OPTICAL designs. It
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell objected to my opinion and responded:
I don't agree (1):
The major differences between macro lenses and non-macro
lenses is that macro lenses have special
the point is that your comment that i quoted was pointless.
mishka
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:17:35 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the point of your erudite comment is?
Shel
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i bet, the differences at 3x5 print wouldn't have been obvious
a disadvantage, so using
a macro lens for non macro work makes no
sense and my comments were certainly not for that
case!
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro
And why was my comment pointless?
the point is that your comment that i quoted was pointless.
I don't know the magnification. Both lenses were used so that the object
filled the frame to the same degree.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/13/2004 7:54:40 AM
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
what magnification
you went like
Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences don't
seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some situations, not at
all in others --
and then revealed that this outburst (pretty arrogant, if you ask me)
is based on
5x enlargement (35mm - 5x7).
my
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses
since you haven't tried to do a
meaningful comparison
yourself.
And what would be a meaningful comparison then?
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences
don't
seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some
situations, not at
all in others. Camera was mounted on a Pentax
- Original Message -
From: Tom Reese
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
At f/8 or f/11 both lenses are at optimal resolution and I don't
think you'll see an appreciable difference in image quality when
both lenses
can focus on the subject.
Depends on the size of the swimming
Mishka Mumbled:
you went like
Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences don't
seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some situations, not
at
all in others --
and then revealed that this outburst (pretty arrogant, if you ask me)
is based on a 5x
On 13 Nov 2004 at 12:33, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
There is ZERO advantage to using macro lenses
at subject distances covered by normal lenses.
Actully there is usually a disadvantage, so using
a macro lens for non macro work makes no
sense and my comments were certainly not for that case!
I
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
I find using macro lenses at non-macro distances most often more
advantageous
than not. I see (and test) no optical deficit for one (over regular
lenses of
comparable quality, FL and speed) and secondly
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses
On 13 Nov 2004 at 12:33, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
There is ZERO advantage to using macro lenses
at subject distances
Shel,
I've done butterflies with a pair of LX's, one with the A100/2.8 Macro
and one with the M100/2.8 and an extension tube. The results were
quite satisfactory with the M100/2.8 and the tube, but not up to the
quality of the A100/2.8 Macro. The extra detail was visible on the
Macro's slides.
The macro gods have been very, very good to me, and I have a couple of fine
Pentax lenses. While preparing to do a close-up of a three dimensional
object the thought crossed my mind that a macro lens is best suited for
flat objects, like stamps and documents, rather than something with greater
While preparing to do a close-up of a three dimensional object the
thought crossed my mind that a macro lens is best suited for flat
objects, like stamps and documents, rather than something with
greater depth like the small toy car I was photographing.
Well, my take on this would be that a
i vaguely remember a discussion here some time ago, and i believe
the consensus was that macro lenses are optimized for close distances,
whereas normal lenses -- for infinity (or near-infinity, for macro purposes)
flatness of field is also an issue.
best,
mishka
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:30:13
On 12 Nov 2004 at 18:30, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The macro gods have been very, very good to me, and I have a couple of fine
Pentax lenses. While preparing to do a close-up of a three dimensional object
the thought crossed my mind that a macro lens is best suited for flat objects,
like stamps
The zone of sharp focus is also extremely narrow at macro distances,
even shooting with f22 or f32! This is why flat field shooting is also
easier. The 'depth' or 'width' of the zone of sharp focus may only be 2
or 3 mm at the most.
Cheers
Shaun
Mishka wrote:
i vaguely remember a discussion
The zone of sharp focus is also extremely narrow at macro
distances, even shooting with f22 or f32! This is why flat field
shooting is also easier. The 'depth' or 'width' of the zone of
sharp focus may only be 2 or 3 mm at the most.
Agreed. Click on the four macro shots, for f/4, f/8, f/16,
43 matches
Mail list logo
