11-15-2011, 11:07 PM
Hi miro,
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1321349055' post='12942']
As already mentioned the modern macro lenses offers incredible optical perfronace at closeup and infinity. Just look at PZ test results – all macro lenses scores better than the rest.
Howevers there are still some caveats.
1. AF performance of some macro is worse at infinity. Good example is my Tokina 100 macro. Optically It is sharp at it get straight from 2,8, but the hit ration at infitity shoots is pretty low. It start to frontfocus randomly for distances higer than 5m. The answer lays in Focus scale – from MFD to 3m the focus ring rotates 320 degree and from 7m to infinity is only few degree – lets say 2..4degree. This combined with conventional dc- AF motor makes the picture complete. Manual focus is joy to handle for macro distances bit when it come for long distances it is useless. Just for indication – the hyperfocal distance is about 200meteres and you have few degree between 3 and 200mters. That thinks goes worse when we go to 7-Infinity range
2. A lot of zoom suffers of significant IQ decrease at MFD. Sigma 50-150/2,8 is a good example. One of my favourite lens Tamron 17-50 have such problem too – not so big, but still distinguishable compared to incredible performance at longer distances. I have heard that canon 70-200/4.0 IS is worse at MFD than the old 70-200/4.0 non IS.[/quote]
I can confirm this; this certainly is my experience. When used with extension tubes I found the 79-200 F/4 IS showed smearing in details, where the non-IS version did ok. It is one of the reasons why I sold my 70-200 F/4 IS after acquiring a 135L. The latter does very well in (semi-)macro mode.
Generally speaking, tele-zooms do better at macro then do standard and (U)WA zooms, mainly because of the rather large relative increase in incident and refraction angles caused by the larger AoV and closeness of subject with (U)WA lenses, and accompanying increase in optical aberrations. This apart from any issues involving extension tubes causing the WD to become negative, IOW, to fall within the lens rather than outside of it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
You could also use flash <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
I tend to use a flash, or even two or three, and the camera mounted on a large flash bracket with large handgrip. This allows me to hold the camera as a camera in an underwater housing, and that allows for a lot more stability, while being able to move quite freely, either using the focusing screen to determine focus, or even LiveView (although I prefer th efocusing screen, using an -s type precision matte).
Kind regards, Wim
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1321349055' post='12942']
As already mentioned the modern macro lenses offers incredible optical perfronace at closeup and infinity. Just look at PZ test results – all macro lenses scores better than the rest.
Howevers there are still some caveats.
1. AF performance of some macro is worse at infinity. Good example is my Tokina 100 macro. Optically It is sharp at it get straight from 2,8, but the hit ration at infitity shoots is pretty low. It start to frontfocus randomly for distances higer than 5m. The answer lays in Focus scale – from MFD to 3m the focus ring rotates 320 degree and from 7m to infinity is only few degree – lets say 2..4degree. This combined with conventional dc- AF motor makes the picture complete. Manual focus is joy to handle for macro distances bit when it come for long distances it is useless. Just for indication – the hyperfocal distance is about 200meteres and you have few degree between 3 and 200mters. That thinks goes worse when we go to 7-Infinity range
2. A lot of zoom suffers of significant IQ decrease at MFD. Sigma 50-150/2,8 is a good example. One of my favourite lens Tamron 17-50 have such problem too – not so big, but still distinguishable compared to incredible performance at longer distances. I have heard that canon 70-200/4.0 IS is worse at MFD than the old 70-200/4.0 non IS.[/quote]
I can confirm this; this certainly is my experience. When used with extension tubes I found the 79-200 F/4 IS showed smearing in details, where the non-IS version did ok. It is one of the reasons why I sold my 70-200 F/4 IS after acquiring a 135L. The latter does very well in (semi-)macro mode.
Generally speaking, tele-zooms do better at macro then do standard and (U)WA zooms, mainly because of the rather large relative increase in incident and refraction angles caused by the larger AoV and closeness of subject with (U)WA lenses, and accompanying increase in optical aberrations. This apart from any issues involving extension tubes causing the WD to become negative, IOW, to fall within the lens rather than outside of it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:At the end of the days who cares. With my little experience I can say that all modern lenses are sharp, most of them are flare resistant and randers the image good. I’m outdoor photopgrapher – landcapes, macro and wildlife.
The most technical problem that I have are caused by
1. camera shake
2. incorrect DOF
3. incorrect AF
4. wrongly included reflection – forgotten to put the Polarizer.
The optical flaws has newer been an serious issue.
All of above mentioned problems ware gone since I move to tripod shoots few years ago.
You could also use flash <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.I tend to use a flash, or even two or three, and the camera mounted on a large flash bracket with large handgrip. This allows me to hold the camera as a camera in an underwater housing, and that allows for a lot more stability, while being able to move quite freely, either using the focusing screen to determine focus, or even LiveView (although I prefer th efocusing screen, using an -s type precision matte).
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....