View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ilovelens
Joined: 03 May 2013 Posts: 27 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:35 am Post subject: Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens |
|
|
ilovelens wrote:
Hello guys my wife is looking for a macro lens for her sony a6000 what would be a really nice sharp macro manual lens you can buy? dont want to spend more than $200. Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
StyxD
Joined: 18 Nov 2014 Posts: 79 Location: Italia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
StyxD wrote:
Kiron 105 f2.8 or Tamron Adaptall 90 f2.5, those are the 2 macro lenses I've tested.
The Kiron has one of the most beautiful IQ I've ever seen in a macro lens but it's HEAVY as a brick. I kept the Tamron as it's sharp as a surgeon knife (sometimes just too much sharp) and way more portable on a small mirrorless. _________________ Powered by Sony A7ii, Canonet QL17 G-III, Konica Hexar RF and:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35 2.4 - Porst 50 1.2 - Canon LTM 50 1.4 - Fujinon 55 2.2 - Topcon 58 1.4 - Leica Summicron-R 90 2.0 - Helios 44M-4 58 2.0 - Konica AE 24 2.8 - Voigtlander Nokton SC 35 1.4 - Leica-R Elmarit 135 2.8 - Leica-R Elmarit 180 2.8 - Jupiter-3 50 1.5 - Jupiter-9 85 2.0
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WolverineX
Joined: 19 Apr 2009 Posts: 1694 Location: Zagreb , Croatia , Europe
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens |
|
|
WolverineX wrote:
ilovelens wrote: |
Hello guys my wife is looking for a macro lens for her sony a6000 what would be a really nice sharp macro manual lens you can buy? dont want to spend more than $200. Thanks |
looking at the macro lenses under 200$ on ebay, your (or your wife's choices) are:
Industar 61 61 L/Z 50mm/2.8
Tamron 90mm/2.5
Pentax 100mm/4
Pentax 50mm/4
Olympus OM 50mm/3.5
Canon FD 50mm/3.5
Canon FD 100mm/4
Vivitar 55mm/2.8 (under many brands)
Micro Nikkor 55mm/2.8
Micro Nikkor 55mm/3.5
Micro Nikkor 105mm/4
Minolta Rokkor 50mm/3.5
Tokina AT-X 90mm/2.5
Volna-9 50mm/2.8
SMC Macro Takumar 50mm/4
and you will not miss with any of the above lenses _________________ my tools:Oly E-M5 + 45mm/1.8 + Oly E-520 + 12-60 + 14-42 + 70-300 + Sigma 105mm + FL-50R + EC20 + SRF-11 ring flash
http://forum.mflenses.com/wolverinex-testing-my-lenses-series-link-list-t39524.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 5028 Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:44 am Post subject: Re: Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
WolverineX wrote: |
Micro Nikkor 55mm/3.5 |
this one is really light (not heavy) lens. _________________ MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ilovelens
Joined: 03 May 2013 Posts: 27 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens |
|
|
ilovelens wrote:
Thank you I'll look them up and I need adapter for them correct ? I'm leading on Tamron 90 2.5 seems sharp
WolverineX wrote: |
ilovelens wrote: |
Hello guys my wife is looking for a macro lens for her sony a6000 what would be a really nice sharp macro manual lens you can buy? dont want to spend more than $200. Thanks |
looking at the macro lenses under 200$ on ebay, your (or your wife's choices) are:
Industar 61 61 L/Z 50mm/2.8
Tamron 90mm/2.5
Pentax 100mm/4
Pentax 50mm/4
Olympus OM 50mm/3.5
Canon FD 50mm/3.5
Canon FD 100mm/4
Vivitar 55mm/2.8 (under many brands)
Micro Nikkor 55mm/2.8
Micro Nikkor 55mm/3.5
Micro Nikkor 105mm/4
Minolta Rokkor 50mm/3.5
Tokina AT-X 90mm/2.5
Volna-9 50mm/2.8
SMC Macro Takumar 50mm/4
and you will not miss with any of the above lenses |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7787 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I have the A6000, and have for macro
Minolta Rokkor 100 / 3.5 with the dedicated extension tube. It's big and heavy but very very good.
Asahi Macro Takumar 50 / 4. Which is tiny and also a great lens, very nice on the A6000
Tamron SP 52BB 90 / 2.5 Another really good lens, can be adapted to the mount of your choice.
There's a 24 / 2.8 Macro lens that turns up with many different names such as Ensinor, Clubman, Tefnon, and is usually cheap and surprisingly good.
There are many zooms that do decent macro, although they might not do 1:1. My favourites are
Minolta Rokkor Macro 35- 70 / 3.5 and the Tamron BBAR 17A 35 - 70 / 3.5 it's hard to choose between these two. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3437 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
I am supporter of the Minolta 100mm 3.5, but you can cheaper with
Panagor 90mm 2.8 and Panagor 55mm 2.8, both 1:1 without extra extension ring.
Very good and not as heavy as the Minolta, that needs the dedicated ring for 1:1. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57850 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Difficult to find crappy macro lenses, they are all good. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6010 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Another very good and very light lens that is often found cheaply is the Sigma EX 50mm 2.8 macro.
It is natively 1:1 without any extension.
Those made for the old Minolta Maxxum are likely the cheapest.
Here is mine on X-E1 with mount adapter.
OH
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
eno789
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 159 Location: California
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eno789 wrote:
Cosina/Phoenix/Promaster/Soligor/Vivitar/Voigtlander 100mm f/3.5 Macro, 49mm filter thread, 258g.
See https://www.flickr.com/groups/cosina
Last edited by eno789 on Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 5028 Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
Another very good and very light lens that is often found cheaply is the Sigma EX 50mm 2.8 macro. |
+1
I have an AF/EOS version that I use 50% of ALL pics I take _________________ MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
In your price range, you'll find many manual focus macro lenses that will do what you need. You should probably ask yourself first of all what your macro requirements are. How likely are you going to need 1:1, for example. Many, if not most, macro lenses go down to 1:2 only. But these lenses can also usually achieve 1:1 with the use of an extension tube or teleconverter.
I'm not familiar with the Sigma OH mentions, but the fact that it goe s down to 1:1 is a definite advantage. The only other one I'm aware of that does this is the Kiron 105mm f/2.8, which can often be found as the Lester Dine macro, and sometimes as a Vivitar Series 1 macro (I have a copy of the latter). This is also an exceptionally good lens, but its prices tend to be rather high.
I have a bunch of macro lenses, and to be honest, for the sort of macro stuff I do, I almost never need 1:1. For this reason, most of the macro work I end up doing is with a macro lens in the 100mm range because it gives me a greater stand-off from the subject. Something that the above Sigma won't permit. And in those special circumstances when I need 1:1, I can either switch to the Kiron -- which I usually don't do -- or I add extension or a teleconverter. If I'm using my Tamron 90mm macro, I'll often use a dedicated Tamron 2x, which will render exactly 1:1 image size. I also own a Vivitar 7-element macro-focusing teleconverter. This is an excellent TC, probably the best I've ever used, but what's nice about it is it has a focusing helical and when using just a regular normal 50mm lens, you can focus all the way down to 1:1 with it. So having one of these will turn ANY lens into a macro lens.
So, recommendations? Based on your requirements and your gear, you have a tremendous range of excellent optics to choose from. I can only state that the Tamron 90mm macro is one of the two sharpest lenses I've ever used and the other one was a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. So to get down to 1:1 with it, I'd get either a Tamron dedicated 2x tc or a Vivitar 7-element 2x tc -- or both. Tamron did make just a tube for the 90 macro, but it's uncommon -- I've never seen one, just heard about it. Remember, you can use the Vivitar tc with any lens and get macro results. So by picking up these three items,. the Tamron 90mm, the Tamron tc, and the Vivitar macro tc, you've maximized your possible selection of useful items without going overboard or breaking your budget. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Basilisk
Joined: 21 Mar 2013 Posts: 356 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basilisk wrote:
For shooting insects in bright natural light, a longer lens is preferable, as it gives a more comfortable working distance, and you are less likely to cast a shadow on the subject. A lot of good options in the 90-105 range. A couple of considerations - my Sigma 105mm f2.8 AF lens takes a nice image but throws up a couple of issues you might want to consider. Close macro work usually requires stopping down for extra DOF. My Sigma has six blades which make distinctly hexagonal OOF highlights when stopped down (fine if wide open). If that bothers you, look for lenses with more blades. It also my most flarey lens if pointed towards the light - I don't know if that is because it is a macro design, but my manual non-macro Nikkor 105 f2.5 is pretty flare resistant even without a hood. Another issue is Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) - particularly noticeable when shooting shiny metallic details. Historically lenses have not been as well corrected for this. I find I can live with it, and in the vast majority of subjects it doesn't show up. But watch for really contrasty situations. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012 Posts: 1840 Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
I just sold my Tokina AT-X 2.5/90 because of the fact that i wanted a macro lens that does 1:1 without an extra tube. I feel it's annoying when you are shooting and then find out that you'd love to go closer and have to take it off again to put the tube in between.....
Don't get me wrong: i love my Minolta macro and use it a lot on the A3000!
But on the 5D i chose the Kiron 2.8/105, does 1:1 by itself and was a lot cheaper than the money i got offered on the AT-X! _________________ My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edri
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 Posts: 315 Location: walking in the air
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens |
|
|
edri wrote:
ilovelens wrote: |
..... I'm leading on Tamron 90 2.5 seems sharp
|
Take care with Tamron 90/2.5. Not really recommended for digital, it is likely to occur a purple spot in the center of the frame from bright reflection off the sensor. _________________ http://www.adlightstill.smugmug.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7787 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
The dreaded blue spot with the Tamron 90 is a problem, but it's not such a problem that I would stop using my lens, and I certainly wouldn't consider getting rid of it. I have had pictures with the blue spot, but with my NEX5, Pentax K10 and Sony A6000 I can see the blue spot in the viewfinder or screen as I compose the picture and either move slightly or shade the lens if I can with a bit of cardboard or something. I always use the hood with this lens, it needs it.
I feel that it's such a good lens it's worth working around the blue spot issue. I've had way more excellent pictures with this lens than rejects due to the blue spot. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I guess I've never used my Tamron 90 in a way that the blue spot was an issue. I've been able to confirm that it was there, but it was in a way I rarely if ever use the lens, as I recall. So yeah, that's why I never hesitate to recommend it. Especially since it seems to be one of the most reasonably priced 100-ish macros around, which is saying something because of its adaptall-2 versatility. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kido
Joined: 06 Jun 2013 Posts: 105 Location: Chile
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
kido wrote:
I agree with the above: the blue spot has never ruined any picture of mine. On the other hand, when it will, I'm sure it will be the one photo I can't repeat.
As for the original question, I have only had experience with two of the lenses mentioned in this thread and I can vouch for both.
1. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 is a great piece of glass, super-sharp, easy to focus, with the addition of the Tamron 01F 2x teleconverter and Tamron 18F extension tube + a decent lens hood (Tamron 98FH if you're lucky) it's a hell of a set-up for very little money.
I've made these two photos the first time I shot with this lens on Sony A6000, both handheld, wide open, 1/2000s, ISO200. The second one was shot at MFD:
2. The Ensinor/Promaster/Super Ozeck/SICOR-XL/Clubman/Ozunon/Super Paragon 24mm f/2.8 - probably not what your wife is looking for, but great lens nevertheless. According to the markings, when it comes to the magnification it goes up to 1:4, its MFD will make you bump into things and most importantly, the IQ is far above its price-point.
The following images were also shot the first time I mounted the Promaster on Sony A6000, these two work great together.
Both handheld, wide open, ISO100, the first one at 1/320s, the second one at 1/60s:
_________________ [C&C] on my pictures are most welcomed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
Volna-9 is nice! I also like the Soligor 90mm f/2.5
http://manuellfokus.no/soligor-cd-macro-mc-90mm-f2-5/ _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ilovelens
Joined: 03 May 2013 Posts: 27 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
ilovelens wrote:
what iis magnification 1:1 or 1:2 what does it do?
cooltouch wrote: |
In your price range, you'll find many manual focus macro lenses that will do what you need. You should probably ask yourself first of all what your macro requirements are. How likely are you going to need 1:1, for example. Many, if not most, macro lenses go down to 1:2 only. But these lenses can also usually achieve 1:1 with the use of an extension tube or teleconverter.
I'm not familiar with the Sigma OH mentions, but the fact that it goe s down to 1:1 is a definite advantage. The only other one I'm aware of that does this is the Kiron 105mm f/2.8, which can often be found as the Lester Dine macro, and sometimes as a Vivitar Series 1 macro (I have a copy of the latter). This is also an exceptionally good lens, but its prices tend to be rather high.
I have a bunch of macro lenses, and to be honest, for the sort of macro stuff I do, I almost never need 1:1. For this reason, most of the macro work I end up doing is with a macro lens in the 100mm range because it gives me a greater stand-off from the subject. Something that the above Sigma won't permit. And in those special circumstances when I need 1:1, I can either switch to the Kiron -- which I usually don't do -- or I add extension or a teleconverter. If I'm using my Tamron 90mm macro, I'll often use a dedicated Tamron 2x, which will render exactly 1:1 image size. I also own a Vivitar 7-element macro-focusing teleconverter. This is an excellent TC, probably the best I've ever used, but what's nice about it is it has a focusing helical and when using just a regular normal 50mm lens, you can focus all the way down to 1:1 with it. So having one of these will turn ANY lens into a macro lens.
So, recommendations? Based on your requirements and your gear, you have a tremendous range of excellent optics to choose from. I can only state that the Tamron 90mm macro is one of the two sharpest lenses I've ever used and the other one was a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. So to get down to 1:1 with it, I'd get either a Tamron dedicated 2x tc or a Vivitar 7-element 2x tc -- or both. Tamron did make just a tube for the 90 macro, but it's uncommon -- I've never seen one, just heard about it. Remember, you can use the Vivitar tc with any lens and get macro results. So by picking up these three items,. the Tamron 90mm, the Tamron tc, and the Vivitar macro tc, you've maximized your possible selection of useful items without going overboard or breaking your budget. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6010 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
ilovelens wrote: |
what iis magnification 1:1 or 1:2 what does it do?
cooltouch wrote: |
In your price range, you'll find many manual focus macro lenses that will do what you need. You should probably ask yourself first of all what your macro requirements are. How likely are you going to need 1:1, for example. Many, if not most, macro lenses go down to 1:2 only. But these lenses can also usually achieve 1:1 with the use of an extension tube or teleconverter.
I'm not familiar with the Sigma OH mentions, but the fact that it goe s down to 1:1 is a definite advantage. The only other one I'm aware of that does this is the Kiron 105mm f/2.8, which can often be found as the Lester Dine macro, and sometimes as a Vivitar Series 1 macro (I have a copy of the latter). This is also an exceptionally good lens, but its prices tend to be rather high.
I have a bunch of macro lenses, and to be honest, for the sort of macro stuff I do, I almost never need 1:1. For this reason, most of the macro work I end up doing is with a macro lens in the 100mm range because it gives me a greater stand-off from the subject. Something that the above Sigma won't permit. And in those special circumstances when I need 1:1, I can either switch to the Kiron -- which I usually don't do -- or I add extension or a teleconverter. If I'm using my Tamron 90mm macro, I'll often use a dedicated Tamron 2x, which will render exactly 1:1 image size. I also own a Vivitar 7-element macro-focusing teleconverter. This is an excellent TC, probably the best I've ever used, but what's nice about it is it has a focusing helical and when using just a regular normal 50mm lens, you can focus all the way down to 1:1 with it. So having one of these will turn ANY lens into a macro lens.
So, recommendations? Based on your requirements and your gear, you have a tremendous range of excellent optics to choose from. I can only state that the Tamron 90mm macro is one of the two sharpest lenses I've ever used and the other one was a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. So to get down to 1:1 with it, I'd get either a Tamron dedicated 2x tc or a Vivitar 7-element 2x tc -- or both. Tamron did make just a tube for the 90 macro, but it's uncommon -- I've never seen one, just heard about it. Remember, you can use the Vivitar tc with any lens and get macro results. So by picking up these three items,. the Tamron 90mm, the Tamron tc, and the Vivitar macro tc, you've maximized your possible selection of useful items without going overboard or breaking your budget. |
|
Macro lenses enable you to get closer to the subject and to show small things as large things in the picture.
As the small things get larger they are magnified to some degree. 1:2 means that they appear as half life size on the sensor and 1:1 means that the image on the sensor is exactly the same size as the subject.
This is what makes ants ( for example) look really big on a projected image.
Hope this helps
OH
Here is an image from the Sigma that I took this afternoon:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
anktonio
Joined: 20 Oct 2012 Posts: 219 Location: Spain
Expire: 2017-02-22
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
anktonio wrote:
Attila wrote: |
Difficult to find crappy macro lenses, they are all good. |
Agreed! I believe this is due to the large number of pixels dedicated to the subject and apertures used in macro(typically f/8 or similar).
Happy shots! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ilovelens
Joined: 03 May 2013 Posts: 27 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
ilovelens wrote:
StyxD wrote: |
Kiron 105 f2.8 or Tamron Adaptall 90 f2.5, those are the 2 macro lenses I've tested.
The Kiron has one of the most beautiful IQ I've ever seen in a macro lens but it's HEAVY as a brick. I kept the Tamron as it's sharp as a surgeon knife (sometimes just too much sharp) and way more portable on a small mirrorless. |
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-Adaptall-2-90mm-f2-5-Macro-Lens-for-Nikon-case-filter-/121605380248?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item1c503ed898
is this the correct tamron you are talking about? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
That's it. Well, actually, that's the second version, even though the two versions are optically identical. They're pretty easy to tell apart. The first version has the severe, abrupt lines that Tamron used on its short primes back then, plus it has a 49mm front filter thread. The second version has the more rounded appearance and a 55mm front filter thread. Either way you go, you can't go wrong.
That particular lens is priced a bit on the high side for what I've seen the Tamron 90s going for on eBay. Often, if you keep your eyes open there, you can find one for less -- either early or late models. For example, here's an early one:
Click here to see on Ebay
One thing both of these lenses have going for them is they include Nikon Adaptall-2 mounts. Nikon mounts are not that common on eBay because of their popularity (everybody wants one, so few are available), I think. I've seen just the Nikonn Adaptall-2 mount sell for $25-30 on eBay. The above lens also comes with a nice Tamron case. Tamron made very nice, sturdy cases for its lenses, but I dunno about you, but I never use them. I have bags and bags full of lens cases, many or which are Tamron. I'll never use them, and I haven't bothered listing them on eBay cuz I figure nobody else really wants them either, but they're just too pretty to throw away.
The search I just conducted on eBay turned up quite a few hits, but I was surprised to see that most of the 90 macros are priced on the high side. I guess the word has finally gotten out about this lens's sharpness, and enough people are like me -- they don't care about the blue circle. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
anktonio wrote: |
Attila wrote: |
Difficult to find crappy macro lenses, they are all good. |
Agreed! I believe this is due to the large number of pixels dedicated to the subject and apertures used in macro(typically f/8 or similar).
Happy shots! |
I suspect something different, since sharp macro lenses date back at least to the early 1960s -- long before anyone had even coined the term "pixel". Macro lenses are all characterized by one design parameter: they are flat field lenses, meaning the curvature of field that is normally present in a lens is minimized with a macro. This flat-field characteristic contributes to on-the-film-plane sharpness. Further, macro lenses are usually slower than non-macro lenses of the same focal lengths (the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro and Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macros being notable exceptions) because they have smaller objective lenses. A smaller lens means fewer optical aberrations, which also leads to a sharper optic. Also, many macro lenses have relatively few elements. Fewer elements means less dispersion of light rays, means a higher contrast, sharper image. Compare Nikon's famed manual-focus 55mm f/3.5 and 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkors -- they have only 5 small pieces of glass each, yet they are absolutely razor-sharp optics. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|