Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Macro Lenses

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315199 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
26 Jul 2012 - 7:06 PM

Better to be to sharp than to soft, easier to soften than it is to sharpen Smile

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 26 Jul 2012 - 7:06 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Jul 2012 - 7:06 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
26 Jul 2012 - 7:12 PM

That's what I would have thought, Paul but maybe it's something to do with unsuitable bokeh or similar? Seemed odd at the time but nobody seemed to question it.

lawbert
lawbert  71713 forum posts England15 Constructive Critique Points
26 Jul 2012 - 7:44 PM


Quote: One of the pros on here, a few years back.

Well he was right....
If I had only one lense to cover vitually every genre it would be a 100mm macro (a true 1:1 jobby!!)

User_Removed
26 Jul 2012 - 7:50 PM


Quote: Anyway, just to go down a different tangent: does anyone here use a macro lens as a portrait lens as well? I have heard it said they are "too sharp" but that (if it is the case) is hardly a problem which can't be solved.


Quote: Anyway, just to go down a different tangent: does anyone here use a macro lens as a portrait lens as well? I have heard it said they are "too sharp" but that (if it is the case) is hardly a problem which can't be solved.

Yes.

The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8VR is a great portrait lens on an FX (full frame) camera.

Too sharp? In the sense that it produces an image which is sharper than you might want a portrait to be, I suppose you could claim that. But why would you want to.

Good portraiture is one (of the few??) genres of photography where more is probably done in post-processing than in the camera. There are whole expensive software programs designed to soften the image and remove the skin detail - but you can do exactly the same in Photoshop or Lightroom with great ease.

I'd rather have a sharp lens and soften in software than attempt to do the converse.

But the short answer is - Yes.

Bjarni
Bjarni  1143 forum posts Scotland
26 Jul 2012 - 8:04 PM

Both the Olymmpus Zuiko 35mm macro and 50mm macro offer 1:1 and I think it was the 50mm that was mentioned as a good portrait lens too. Could the suitability as a portrait lens be related to the 35mm equivalent viewpoint/crop factr difference?

Ade_Osman
Ade_Osman e2 Member 114499 forum postsAde_Osman vcard England36 Constructive Critique Points
26 Jul 2012 - 9:22 PM

Stepping in worried about saying anything, but bugger it here goes! Wink

I very often use the Tamron as a portrait lens........It actually better than the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens that the wife has. But then again and this will start another argument, the Tamron's better all round than the Canon......The only thing it has against it is the fact it extends lengthways and is a little noisy when used in auto focus, which is not something that bothers me a lot as I rarely use auto on it anyway. Optically, and this is just an opinion before anyone rips into me the Tamron is far superior!!!

That should get the lens Snobbist's knickers in a right old twist! Grin

Right I'm off to the galleries before I start another forum flan fight Wink

Ade

Last Modified By Ade_Osman at 26 Jul 2012 - 9:23 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
26 Jul 2012 - 9:31 PM

Thanks guys. The reason I asked was because I have in mind a macro lens (announced but not yet on sale). The price will probably be quite high... several hundreds. I do not do enough anything like enough purely macro work to justify spending so much money, but if it could double as a portrait lens, that would make it a more worthwhile purchase. Smile

Philh04
Philh04  855 forum posts
27 Jul 2012 - 8:33 AM


Quote: I knew all this all the time Wink My 10 year old 90mm Tamron shows 1:1 on the distance scale, so on my D7000 I will get 1:1.5

No.... No.... No.... It will be 1:1, a crop sensor does not magically increase the magnification.....

Phil

Philh04
Philh04  855 forum posts
27 Jul 2012 - 11:15 AM


Quote: My 65mm will give me 1:5, or is that 5:1?.......Even more on the 50d........

Ade (leaving room, banging head against wall, wishing I hadn't said anything in the first place.)

Nope it will still be 5x mag no matter what physical size of sensor you use it on.....

Phil

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
27 Jul 2012 - 1:11 PM


Quote: a crop sensor does not magically increase the magnification.....

But the angle of view is narrower using the same lens on a crop as opposed to FF.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3792 forum posts United Kingdom
27 Jul 2012 - 1:18 PM


Quote: a crop sensor does not magically increase the magnification.....

But the angle of view is narrower using the same lens on a crop as opposed to FF.

The reproduction ratio compares the physical size of the object with the physical size of the image of the object on the sensor. That is to say, if the object size is 1mm long and the size of the image on the sensor is 1mm long, the the reproduction ratio is 1:1. The size of the sensor has nothing to do with it except insofar as it places constraints on the size of object than can be imaged at 1:1.

Last Modified By oldblokeh at 27 Jul 2012 - 1:19 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
27 Jul 2012 - 1:27 PM

This is the sort of debate they get into on DPR............. usually interminable! Grin

When I put a 50mm lens onto a FF camera it will give me a certain size on the sensor. When I put that very same lens on an M4/3 camera, hey presto, the image is double the size on the sensor. Sounds pretty magical to me. Wink

Don't quite see why the same does not apply to a macro lens, but perhaps it's a matter of terminology?

Philh04
Philh04  855 forum posts
27 Jul 2012 - 1:32 PM


Quote: But the angle of view is narrower using the same lens on a crop as opposed to FF.

More correctly Field of View Smile but that has nothing to do with magnification, no matter what size of sensor one is using at 1:1 a 1mm object will still reproduce at 1mm as oldblokeh states...

Phil

mikehit
mikehit  56320 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
27 Jul 2012 - 1:34 PM

Naughty boy, CB - stop winding him up. Grin

Last Modified By mikehit at 27 Jul 2012 - 1:35 PM
Philh04
Philh04  855 forum posts
27 Jul 2012 - 1:38 PM


Quote: This is the sort of debate they get into on DPR............. usually interminable! Grin

When I put a 50mm lens onto a FF camera it will give me a certain size on the sensor. When I put that very same lens on an M4/3 camera, hey presto, the image is double the size on the sensor. Sounds pretty magical to me. Wink

Don't quite see why the same does not apply to a macro lens, but perhaps it's a matter of terminology?

No its not double the size, given you have stayed in the same position the image projected onto the sensor is the same size, it is impossible for it to be double, its just that the M4/3 sensor sees less of the projected image...

Phil

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.