Macro Lens Comparison

[cooltouch]

Recently I added a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 Macro to my small collection of macro lenses. Now I have three: the above, plus a Tamron 52B SP 90mm f/2.5 and a Nikon pre-AI 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. And now that I have a small collection, I decided to do a comparison, just to see where they all stand. Especially since the Kiron-made Vivitar macro is so highly regarded. And just for grins and giggles, I tossed a zoom into the mix too.

Here's the line-up:



I have posted a complete review on my blog. You should check it out (the link is in my sig). You just might be as surprised by the results as I was.

[F16SUNSHINE]

That's quite a set of lenses. The Kiron made 105 is a gem from my experience. I've not tried any of your others.

[patrickh]

I have all three macros and generally support your findings - although I feel the results would have been closer than what yours show. But thanks for the work - very interesting


patrickh

[Boomer Depp]

[Boomer Depp]

Nice write-up, and well presented,Michael!

Surprised there was no test at 5.6,though the results would have been about the same.

I've always heard the Vivitar S1 90/2.5 and the Tokina 90/2.5 were the highest rated and sharpest macros,and lens tests reflects this.The most exacting tests are when multiple copies of a lens are tested.

Would have liked to see the Kiron 100/2.8 in this test since it was optimized for close up work like the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5.The Vivitar S1 90/2.5 and the Tokina 90/2.5 are optimized for close-up work as well.Most of the Vivitar macro lenses built after the Vivitar S1 90/2.5,weren't optimized for close up to improve the results shooting at infinity.

Photodo shows the same results,and is about what I expected.

The Vivitar S1 90/2.5 and the Tokina 90/2.5 were tied for third highest rated lenses and the highest macros tested by Photodo.The Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 wasn't tested,but the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 which isn't optimized for close up work tested higher then many macros,including the Vivitar 105/25.

The lens ratings at Photodo also have some AF lenses that score quite high,equal to the Tokina 90.25,but this is a MF forum.

Photodo Lens Tests & ratings

Rating.....Macro Lens

4.6.........Tokina 90/2.5
4.6.........Vivitar 90/2.5
4.5.........Leica Elmarit-R 100/2.8
4.4.........Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8
4.2.........Tamron 90/2.5
4.2.........Minolta 100/2.8
4.2.........Olympus 90/2
4.2.........Pentax 200/4 ED
4.1.........Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8
4.0.........Vivitar 105/2.5

Photodo Lens tests and ratings.

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

[Excalibur]

Interesting for the next stage up from macro...a close up shoot out, I'm sure quite a few lenses (esp some zooms) that can be bought for under £10 that no one seems to want, would put up a good show.

From inferior Jessops 200asa film, store scan for a 1.5mb file, just tweaked a bit more in sharpening and gamma by me, Vivitar 28mm f2.8 close up lens bought for £8 last week off ebay:-
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo22_19A.jpg

[Nesster]

First, you did a super job with the testing, as you controlled for most of the variables and tested for the condition they'd be used for.

For sheer manual focus looks the Nikkor lords it over the others. I like the old tamrons, but the stealth lens look just isn't photogenic, no matter how well the design performs in reality. But we don't really care what our equipment looks like now do we?

Also it warms my heart to see my two lenses do so well, not that I exercised discretion when buying them: I'd wanted the 52bb for years, though with an 01a there wasn't a burning need... and when I bought my FE, I listened to people's advice about the Micro Nikkor, buying it as my first.

If interested, here's a camera magazine test of 'normal macros' from 1977, so you can place the then current Micro-Nikkor in context with the Canons and Hexars and Rokkors of the day:

(click on image to go to flickr, there is a very large version of this, downloadable & printable)

[convert1]

Hi all, thanks cooltouch for your effort.
My dirty quick comparison tells me another story, especially the rating of olympus 90mm.
I usually don't shoot macro at wide open, as I did here.
Note: Focuspoint was "St Dupont", Tripod, selftimer with Lumix G1.
The watch was not plan with the sensor (to show the loCA at minute scale).
ViVitar 90mm/ @2.5


Olympus 90mm/ @2.5


Tamron 90mm/ @2.5


Voigtländer 125mm/ @2.5


Kiron 105mm/ @2.8

[Keysersoze27]

Nice comparison .

It's nice to see what a 1964 lens, that cost around 35~45Euros, can do next to more famous and recent ones

[Boomer Depp]

[trifox]

where's Carl Zeiss, please ? lol

just joking of course!

Vivitar is quite good!

tf

[Excalibur]

Well I have the other Vivitar 28mm f2.8 (non close focus) and it's also a very good lens used normally, and did quite well up against a Vivitar 55mm macro on a big enlargement.

Vivitar 55mm macro
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/viv55mm-macro.jpg

Non close focus Vivitar 28mm f2.8
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/viv28.jpg

[Arkku]

[Orio]

I like the result from the Olympus best.

[Excalibur]

[trifox]

[Arkku]

[justtorchit]

I have always been curious about the olympus 90mm f/2 since the price has always been so high. Just how good is it. The results there on the Vivitar S1 90mm appear soft. I have shot with this lens quite a bit and know it is capable of extremely sharp shots wide open. I actually just compared three iterations of the Kiron 105mm on my blog and included a sample from that S1 90mm as well. It's an amazing lens. I may just do another for the sake of science!

http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/02/105mm-trio-another-comparison-soon-to.html

[cooltouch]

Thanks for all the feedback, and additional documentation of these and other fine macro lenses, guys.

Boomer, part of me wanted to include all the results, and part of me wanted to keep the article at a manageable size. The latter part won out. Today, though, I was thinking that I could revisit the subject and show the results for f/5.6, f/11, and f/22. As you mention, though, things may not be substantially different. Although it's possible that one or more of the lenses' sweet spots might be better shown at these in-between aperture values.

Well, I keep hearing great things about the Vivitar and Tokina 90mm macros. Maybe sometime soon I can add one or more of them to my collection. I found the Photodo results interesting, and they do seem to generally agree with mine, at least with the Tamron and Vivitar lenses.

Excalibur, that's an impressive photo, considering the film quality and all.

Nesster, thanks for the resolution article. I was pleasantly surprised to see the Canon 50mm macro had the least chromatic aberration of all the lenses tested. I used to own one, and that lens was impressively sharp.

Canon F-1, 50mm f/3.5 Macro, Kodachrome 64, exposure unrecorded (both images)



I used my slide duplicator rig, which includes my prized 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and a 10.1mp Canon XS, to "scan" the above images.

[Excalibur]

[Excalibur]

***Excalibur, that's an impressive photo, considering the film quality and all.***

Well there are so many good lenses going for peanuts, and it can be fun getting the best out of them...had to stop my LBA for bidding on a Tamron 80-210 103a with Nikon mount for £14 inc del on ebay today.

[Boomer Depp]

Cooltouch-From what I read on the Vivitar S1 105 the lens sweet spot is 5.6-8.0,so I suspect the results to be similar.

If the lens is optimized to shoot at infinity the results wouldn't be the same for different distances.Shooting further distances or infinity might find the results being reversed for the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 & the Tamron 90/2.5 compared to a lens that was optimized for infinity rather then macro.

Lens that are optimized for macro like the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5,Tamron 90/25,Vivitar 90/2.5.,Tokina 90/2.5,Kiron 105/2.8 would probably yield closer results.

Macro lenses optimized for infinity such as Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8,Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8,Vivitar 90/2.8 and probably your Vivitar S1 105/2.5 the peak performance occurs for distant objects and the image quality is slightly reduced when brought to their near limit.

Often it's best to have a few macros in various focal lengths with some optimized for macro and others for infinity.So the more macros in your stable of lenses is really a good thing.

[Orio]

It's the first time that I read of Macro lenses optimized for infinity.

[Boomer Depp]

Many macros are optimized for infinity versus macros optimized for macro to give the photographer more options.Some photographers who shot macro professionally for years are surprised to discover this.

There are also lenses with 10:1,20:1,40:1,etc. reproduction that are optimized for extreme magnification.

"Bjørn Rørslett discusses more the a few of these lenses."Some lenses like the Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 28 mm f/1.8 are optimized for extreme sharpness at magnification more then typical macro optimized for macro(up to 1.200 lines/mm resolution).It is designed with an image circle of just 8 mm and optimized for 10:1 magnification!"

"The Zuiko 20/3.5 macro is equipped with microscope threads and targeted for use on a bellows or photomacrographic camera.Optimum results are produced around 8-10:1. At these extreme magnifications focusing is extremely difficult and the viewfinder screen virtually black so using the Zuiko calls for additional strong object illumination.Optimum sharpness for this lens depends on the image magnification."

Bjørn Rørslett also features some lenses on his site with a 40:1 magnification! I am sure there are many more types of these specialized lenses for lab use and so forth.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

[Himself]

I have the Vivitar 55/2.8. Very pleased with till now.
There is any wide angle macro lens?
Today I felt like I could use one.