| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2010 04:32:13 AM · #1 |
I have 2 macro lenses.
The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon (Which I didn't know was macro, thought it was standard zoom...talk about chasing the gear) and the Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED which I did know was a macro.
I still, however, have very little idea of what makes a good macro lens. The 24-70 was a replacement for my old D80 kit lens. The 60mm macro was suppose to bring me into the macro world of photography but work got busy and I haven't been doing much photography (Been doing more video with the Canon). Only yesterday did I notice that Sigma has 2 24-70mm lenses, the macro being cheaper. Why would it be cheaper? And is it just the working distance that makes the difference? |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 05:43:22 AM · #2 |
The Nikkor 60mm micro lens is an excellent product and one of the sharpest optical packages available for a fair price.
Please note that Nikon uses the correct terminology (IMHO) which is micro and not macro. There is a difference in meaning and context, so you may wish to explore these definitions further to add to your own understanding of the concepts. There are many definitions of what a macro / micro lens is, and most have some merit based upon the approach to close-up photography being described. I have offered you some explanations below for your consideration.
To me, it is extreme close-up photography that offers a 1:1 scale (life size on-film or on-sensor) of the object being captured. No doubt, other fellow DPCers will disagree and offer alternate definitions. I suggest that you consider them all and form your own point of view.
The OED describes the two terms this way, so you choose what is best for you.
micro - adjective - extremely small or small-scale
macro - adjective - large-scale; overall
Another accepted OED definition of macro is as a noun, for example, macro-lens.
macro-lens - noun - a camera lens suitable for taking photographs unusually close to the subject, ORIGIN from Greek makros ‘long, large’
Nikon describes it this way.
Each Micro-NIKKOR lens enables photographers to shoot 1:1 closeups, without the need for additional accessories. Each lens also features f-stops down to f/32, for maximum depths of field, so indispensable for close-ups and macro shooting.
The emphasis is on the 1:1 ratio for scale.
The Nikkor 60mm will focus to 22cm or 8.6"
Does this help?
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 08:06:29 AM · #3 |
It helps.
If you have your 50mm lens and a 50mm macro lens, is the only difference going to be that you can work closer to your subject? |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 08:20:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
It helps.
If you have your 50mm lens and a 50mm macro lens, is the only difference going to be that you can work closer to your subject? |
Yes, but the closer focus is just a way to the higher magnification (1:1 or greater) that defines the traditional realm of macro photography. Bear in mind also that many 3rd-part lenses (like your Sigma 24-70) tack on "macro" in their description because they allow close-up focusing, however many of them don't have any greater magnification than their OEM counterparts. It's marketing hype. If you look at the "specifications" tab on the page for almost any lens on the B&H site, you will see the maximum magnification listed. Rely on this as an indicator of whether a lens is a true macro lens. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 09:18:01 AM · #5 |
| You may have just answered this, but bear with me... if you have two lenses of the same focal length and aperture, and one is a macro, what other differences are there? I mean, what would the advantage of the non-macro lens be? Cost? Clarity? |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 09:51:24 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by citymars:
You may have just answered this, but bear with me... if you have two lenses of the same focal length and aperture, and one is a macro, what other differences are there? I mean, what would the advantage of the non-macro lens be? Cost? Clarity? |
Macro specialty lenses (not the zoom types) also have a design that is specific to macro work. If I remember correctly, it is called a "flat field" design. These lenses will be sharper and more consistent edge to edge. By that I mean the image quality on the edges will be the same as in the image quality in the center.
These lenses were ostensibly designed for copy work. So corner to corner sharpness was critical. This is why you don't see 50mm macro lenses in the F1.4 or F1.8 ranges. Typically they are F2.5 or so.
Most macro lens conversation centers around how close it can focus or the magnification ratio. A true macro design will be the flat field type.
Some portrait photographers use macro lenses for this reason. I know  librodo used a Nikon macro lens for his portraits. He does OK, I guess. ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:00:44 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by citymars:
You may have just answered this, but bear with me... if you have two lenses of the same focal length and aperture, and one is a macro, what other differences are there? I mean, what would the advantage of the non-macro lens be? Cost? Clarity? |
Macro specialty lenses (not the zoom types) also have a design that is specific to macro work. If I remember correctly, it is called a "flat field" design. These lenses will be sharper and more consistent edge to edge. By that I mean the image quality on the edges will be the same as in the image quality in the center.
These lenses were ostensibly designed for copy work. So corner to corner sharpness was critical. This is why you don't see 50mm macro lenses in the F1.4 or F1.8 ranges. Typically they are F2.5 or so.
Most macro lens conversation centers around how close it can focus or the magnification ratio. A true macro design will be the flat field type.
Some portrait photographers use macro lenses for this reason. I know librodo used a Nikon macro lens for his portraits. He does OK, I guess. ;-) |
I agree with this summary too. The main differences are in f-stop and flat field optics as suggested. The flat field affect linearity, short field focus and light illumination on the sensor.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:31:56 AM · #8 |
| I concur with Morgan and scarbrd. An interesting fact is that true macro lenses, although optimized for macro work, often make stunningly good general purpose lenses... with the exception that AF is often slower than non-macro lenses in the same focal length range. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:40:10 AM · #9 |
| So a non-macro lens of the same focal length will not have the same edge to edge sharpness? |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:44:12 AM · #10 |
I use several combinations of the older Micro Nikkors, and I think that I like the 105 best for bugs and things that move, and I like the 55 best for flowers and copy work.
Here's a link to several thorough reviews of the Micro Nikkor lenses. B&H Micro Nikkor Reviews Lots of good info there.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:59:55 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
So a non-macro lens of the same focal length will not have the same edge to edge sharpness? |
That is correct. With non-macro lenses, the edge-to-edge sharpness improves as you stop the lens down. With a true macro it should be more consistent through the aperture range of the lens. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 11:06:31 AM · #12 |
"Stop the lens down" = for example, going from 2.8 to 5.6. That is, from a lower f-stop number to a higher, in other words, closing the aperture for increased DOF.
Sorry, I just had to type that out because the up/down always confuses me. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 11:12:20 AM · #13 |
| Also, the zoom lens marked macro only means that you can focus closer than on a similar zoom without that designation. Even though your zoom has the word macro in the name, it is not a macro lens. As described earlier in this thread a macro lens is special in the way it is built. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 11:16:14 AM · #14 |
So is there a true zoom macro? Or does a true macro have to be fixed focal length?
EDIT: Was that too stupid a question? :-O
Message edited by author 2010-01-28 12:28:31. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 12:46:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by citymars:
So is there a true zoom macro? Or does a true macro have to be fixed focal length?
EDIT: Was that too stupid a question? :-O |
People can argue this a lot. IMO a true macro lens is a flat field fixed focal length lens.
Canyou get awesome close up shots with a zoom lens? Sure. I use my point and shot for close ups and I am very pleased with the results.
Message edited by author 2010-01-28 12:46:30. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 12:57:30 PM EDT.
