visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10543
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
visualopsins wrote:
Welcome Atelier Cunha
Closer focus distance?
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 9097
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
Welcome Atelier Cunha
Closer focus distance? |
But is the magnification improved at all? Otherwise, no benefit seems to me. As a guy who started out with 50mm macros, I can tell you that the extremely close focusing distances achieved were often a real PITA. I much prefer the standoff achieved by longer lenses.
I can think of one exception, though. I own a few Nikkor 55mm macro lenses and one Nikkor 200mm macro. Sadly, no 100mm Nikkors, but I do have 100s in other makes. What I've noticed is, sharpness-wise, there's little difference between a 50mm and a 100mm macro. But there was a rather large difference in sharpness between the 50s and 100s I own and that 200mm Nikkor macro. It isn't exactly soft. It just doesn't have the eye-popping brilliance that the shorter focal lengths have.
Anyway, my advice to Atelier is that he should rest confident in knowing his macro is probably at least as good as a 50mm, and I wouldn't worry about getting a 50mm unless he's just after having the set.
_________________
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/ |
|
Atelier Cunha
Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Atelier Cunha wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
Welcome Atelier Cunha
Closer focus distance? |
Hello friends,
thank you very much for the welcome votes and the opinions. I have retained the following from your words:
1. Smaller MFD; actually goes from 44cm (2/100mm) to 24cm (2/50mm). Allows greater approximation; more pronounced blur (OOF) on certain occasions (Macro or Normal).
2. Wider angle for normal (and maybe macro) photography.
3. It's a great standard lens, in addition to macro.
I would add: a smaller lens (despite stretching when focusing) and lighter.
In terms of performance, sharpness, etc, they should be similar. |
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
