[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298613113' post='6344']
Thank you all again.
From the MTFs provided by Nikon, the AF-S 60 2.8 macro has a very impressive MTF at f/2.8. Nikon did not provide a MTF for the 50 1.8D at f/2.8. But from the test on this website (on APS-C cameras) I saw that at the lens center the resolution of the 50 1.8D beats that of the AF-S 60 2.8 macro; but the off cetter resolution of 60 2.8 is better.
Frank
[/quote]
I would suggest to check photo samples here, or go to flickr/pixel-peeper/etc and compare photos(just be carefull for motion/out of focus blur). IMHO resolution differences won't be noticeable. Charts numbers lets you imagine how lens performs, but in reallity other factors influence photo's quality (especially for borders, which wide open mostly remain out of focus), and resolution is sufficient for both lenses. In Nikon 50 f1.4 costs even less than mentioned macro, so you could consider this one instead of 50 f1.8. I think decision is between speed and macro, and not between few lines difference on charts.
BTW, you can always rent a lens and try it.
A.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298613113' post='6344']
Thank you all again.
It appears to me that some of you (or all of you) are saying that when being used as a normal lens, a macro lens cannot beat a good normal lens like 50 1.8. I tend to believe your statements since I have never used a macro lens. However, I am still curious: by design a macro lens should have superior resolution, and should have better resolution and contrast off the lens center than a normal lens. However, you are saying that as a normal lens the 60 2.8 macro cannot produce an image better than 50 1.8 at the same aperture in terms of resolution and contrast. Is this because the 50 1.8 is too good?
From the MTFs provided by Nikon, the AF-S 60 2.8 macro has a very impressive MTF at f/2.8. Nikon did not provide a MTF for the 50 1.8D at f/2.8. But from the test on this website (on APS-C cameras) I saw that at the lens center the resolution of the 50 1.8D beats that of the AF-S 60 2.8 macro; but the off cetter resolution of 60 2.8 is better.
Frank
[/quote]
Of course a macro lens CAN beat a good normal lens. But then the macro lens has to be BETTER itself. The 60mm f2.8 from Nikon simply is not better.
I do not know why you say that by design a macro lens should have better resolution. That just makes little sense, just that a macro lens is a macro lens does not give it magical properties. Also contrast... The macro lens you are talking about has more elements, and no very special very expensive ones at that. It will have more glass/air surfaces than the more simple 50mm f1.8. So, if we disregard possible differences in coating success, the 50mm lens should be more contrasty by design.
Yes, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very good. I would prefer it over the 50mm f1.4 IQ wise. Also, it focusses faster than the 50mm f1.4. The 50mm f1.4 focusses more silent and probably a little bit more accurate/reliable.
The off-center resolution is not better, as far as I can see, only at f2.8? And when you are shooting at f2.8, you really do not care about border resolution. Ever.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='arv' timestamp='1298623347' post='6348']
I would suggest to check photo samples here, or go to flickr/pixel-peeper/etc and compare photos(just be carefull for motion/out of focus blur). IMHO resolution differences won't be noticeable. Charts numbers lets you imagine how lens performs, but in reallity other factors influence photo's quality (especially for borders, which wide open mostly remain out of focus), and resolution is sufficient for both lenses. In Nikon 50 f1.4 costs even less than mentioned macro, so you could consider this one instead of 50 f1.8. I think decision is between speed and macro, and not between few lines difference on charts.
BTW, you can always rent a lens and try it.
A.
[/quote]
Personally, I would not choose the 50mm f1,4 over the 50mm f1.8... the f1.8 version is very good all on its own.
I have a somewhat similar question:
I thought that I might add a macro to my setup, - the question remains: which one, and will it complement or replace smth. (not necessarily make any lens to leave the cupboard, but stay on the camera instead of another lens).
My setup is Nikon -
D50, D700, some recent AF-D lenses (20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 80-200/2.8), some AF-S (18-70mm, 17-35mm and 200mm VR1), TC17 and a couple of flashes.
My attention drew 60mm AF-D, 200mm AF-D and 70-180mm AF-D - I like that AF/MF switch, and they are impeccable.
I would prefer 60mm AF-D to AF-S, and I am not really interested in 105mm VR (although with TC17 it would make an interesting combination).
200/4 is the most controversial - that would be the 3rd bulky 200mm.
60mm is likely to compete with 50mm, and I do not plan to specialise on stamps, etc.
Which leads me to 70-180mm, - and its overlap with 80-200.
For all I know, 70-180 seems to be a safe bet. And I start to think that it actually may well replace 80-200 on a stroll or hike, or in a venue where you can use a flash. And you can go very close if you want to.
My question is -- is 70-180 good enough for things that are not very close?
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298641874' post='6360']
I have a somewhat similar question:
I thought that I might add a macro to my setup, - the question remains: which one, and will it complement or replace smth. (not necessarily make any lens to leave the cupboard, but stay on the camera instead of another lens).
My setup is Nikon -
D50, D700, some recent AF-D lenses (20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 80-200/2.8), some AF-S (18-70mm, 17-35mm and 200mm VR1), TC17 and a couple of flashes.
My attention drew 60mm AF-D, 200mm AF-D and 70-180mm AF-D - I like that AF/MF switch, and they are impeccable.
I would prefer 60mm AF-D to AF-S, and I am not really interested in 105mm VR (although with TC17 it would make an interesting combination).
200/4 is the most controversial - that would be the 3rd bulky 200mm.
60mm is likely to compete with 50mm, and I do not plan to specialise on stamps, etc.
Which leads me to 70-180mm, - and its overlap with 80-200.
For all I know, 70-180 seems to be a safe bet. And I start to think that it actually may well replace 80-200 on a stroll or hike, or in a venue where you can use a flash. And you can go very close if you want to.
My question is -- is 70-180 good enough for things that are not very close?
[/quote]
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8. Just add an extension tube (kenko makes good affordable sets), like a 25mm one, and you will have a zoom tele lens that does the same as that 70-180mm micro, with IQ to match and a very low price.
Other interesting macro lenses to consider:
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. The sharpest lens for full frame you will have, better than the Nikon 60mm.
The SIgma 150mm f2.8 macro. Great lens with silent and "fast" (for a macro lens) AF.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5. Great optics and not the weight of the Nikon.
Thank you for the reply!
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298643687' post='6363']
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8.[/quote] That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
Quote:Other interesting macro lenses to consider:
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. The sharpest lens for full frame you will have, better than the Nikon 60mm.
The SIgma 150mm f2.8 macro. Great lens with silent and "fast" (for a macro lens) AF.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5. Great optics and not the weight of the Nikon.
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298644571' post='6364']
Thank you for the reply!
That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.
[/quote]
Oh sorry, strange that I "read" 70-200mm VR in that. So you have the 200mm f2 VR, nice lens.
Still the 70-180mm micro/macro, while being a nice concept, has no virtues over a 80-200 f2.8 with extension tubes. It is not better optically for close by photography.
The 802--mm f2,8 will keep its focal length close to 200mm, where the 70-180mm will show serious focal length breathing (meaning it will have a lot shorter focal length at close ranges).
It is a bit less heavy, but at over 1kg it still is a heavy lens and the difference to the 80-200mm f2.8's weight is almost negligible. While it has a long focus path, nice for MF, it is slow with AF as normal zoom tele.
The 80-200 is also a bit sharper at the long end.
In short, I only see downsides to the 70-180mm micro compared to the 80-200mm f2.8 + extension tubes.
The 80-200 is sharper, will actually offer a long focal length at close up distances, focusses faster, and still opens up to f2.8.
It will deliver superior results, also for close up stuff. Just get an extension tube set for it.
Is there any way you can try out your 80-200mm f2,8 with a set of extension tubes?
Well, that was quite clear - thanks again!
I s'pose I just can buy some extension tubes, they may be quite useful with many lenses.
As I have no experience whatsoever with these - which tubes would I need? Should I stick to Nikon, or Kenko set is good enough quality (mechanical - as there are no optics)?
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298662459' post='6369']
Well, that was quite clear - thanks again!
I s'pose I just can buy some extension tubes, they may be quite useful with many lenses.
As I have no experience whatsoever with these - which tubes would I need? Should I stick to Nikon, or Kenko set is good enough quality (mechanical - as there are no optics)?
[/quote]
Kenko is fine quality. Nikon would be fine too, I am sure. Just be sure to get ones that route through the motor drive screw for the lens (I am not familiar with the Nikon ones, but I am sure they do that).
Yes, there are no optics.. all they do is compress the focus-ability.
I do not know what length you need. On my 70-200mm from Canon I use a 12mm one, which gives me about 1:3 macro. But my Canon focusses a bit closer (1.2m standard). A kenko set comes with 36, 24 and 12mm I think, and you can find out which extension length gives you what you need with whichever lens you use them with.
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298662459' post='6369']
Well, that was quite clear - thanks again!
I s'pose I just can buy some extension tubes, they may be quite useful with many lenses.
As I have no experience whatsoever with these - which tubes would I need? Should I stick to Nikon, or Kenko set is good enough quality (mechanical - as there are no optics)?
[/quote]
Kenko set (12, 20 and 36mm) does support the screw drive, so it should be fine with 80-200mm. With 36mm tube you would get 0.62x magnification at 80mm and 0.35x at 200mm (the longer the focal length, the less effect of the extension tube). Technically a full set (68mm) would give you a true 1:1 magnification at 80mm, but from my own experience it's a bad idea - 80-200 is just too heavy and 3 Kenko rings joined together will struggle to support it. They bend and lose the contact witch each other <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
|
