06-09-2011, 12:19 PM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1307616660' post='9094']
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
[/quote]
Seeing the Tamron 70-30-0 VC and Canon 300mm f4 L IS already reach 1:4 at 1.5 meters, not quite that impressive... OK, but nothing special.
I seriously dislike 90mm on APS-C for close up work, the field of view just is highly unattractive to me. I like more narrow field if view (use 200mm at the moment) or wider field of view (35mm or wider). My 90mm macro gets very little use.
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
[/quote]
Seeing the Tamron 70-30-0 VC and Canon 300mm f4 L IS already reach 1:4 at 1.5 meters, not quite that impressive... OK, but nothing special.
I seriously dislike 90mm on APS-C for close up work, the field of view just is highly unattractive to me. I like more narrow field if view (use 200mm at the moment) or wider field of view (35mm or wider). My 90mm macro gets very little use.