Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Wife Sony A6000 Macro Lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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:







PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Volna-9 is nice! I also like the Soligor 90mm f/2.5



http://manuellfokus.no/soligor-cd-macro-mc-90mm-f2-5/


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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:



PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I saw micro nikkor 105 2.8 at flea market for $250 is it good?




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.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ilovelens wrote:
I saw micro nikkor 105 2.8 at flea market for $250 is it good?


If it is in good mechanical and cosmetic condition, that's a fair price. Looking at eBay, the f/2.8 manual focus version sells for about that price and higher, so $250 and up. A few for less. A few auctions, not Buy It Now listings, that might end up going for less. So based on this data, yes, it's a fair price.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a quite rare Sigma 90mm 2.8 Macro (1:2, 1:1 with life-size attachment ), reviewed here:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-90mm-f2-8-macro.html

Although I don't have the attachment, what I like about the Sigma most is its size,
compared to all macros which have been mentioned already.
(weight=340 gr. length=67mm, max. 85mm)

kind regards
hasan


PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know about it being rare or not. I just dd a search on ebay for a Sigma 90mm macro and got a bunch of hits. About half of them were for an AF version, which, oddly enough, seems to be selling for cheaper than the MF version.

It reminds me of the Tamron 90mm as far as compactness goes. My Tamron 90 is shorter than my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, but that's mostly because the Nikkor has a deeply recessed front element, whereas the Tamron's (and Sigma's) is almost flush with the front of the lens.

Still, this Sigma is very highly rated at the Pentax site, and I find that those folks are astute and usually grade optics accurately. So for its price it appears to be a decent value.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2