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

What focal length for macro?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:21 pm    Post subject: What focal length for macro? Reply with quote
I'm considering a dedicated macro lens - my Helios 44-3 with extension tubes just isn't cutting it any more, and the double gauss design just doesn't seem to hold up very well when the flange focal distance is changed - I get a very soft image lacking in contrast. Thus I'm looking for a dedicated macro lens. Here's the main dilemma - 180-200mm or 100mm? I was at first thinking of getting a Canon FD 100mm macro and an EdMika EOS conversion kit, but the problem is that it's only 1:2. I saw a good deal on an FD 200mm f/4 which I hear is an excellent lens. It focuses to 1:1 while maintaining a long working distance, so that can only be good right? However, not sure how much I'd want to lug a tripod around. Will I get sharp results handheld with it? Ultimately, I'm not sure how much I'd need the extra working distance, it's just the focusing to 1:1 vs 1:2. Plus the 200mm would double as a high quality telephoto.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It really depends on what you need for magnification and working distance.
What subjects are you shooting.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You can get some surprisingly sharp results handheld. I use a Vivitar 90mm macro lens (the Komine one, not the Series 1) which is a 180mm equivalent on MFT. This was handheld, 1/160s:



I say go for the 200mm! Working distance is always nice to have, and like you say, it'd be a great general purpose tele Smile


PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you're considering modern Shocked AF lens, a year ago I've chosen Canon 180L Macro, a well-built long expensive lens with, I think, solid bokeh for a new age lens.





And I'd probably repeat the choice in case of being able to time-travel Cool

Despite "brand new" measured with optics of this board, I realized it's my longest serving lens - soon to be 10 months Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 pm    Post subject: Re: What focal length for macro? Reply with quote
AlexWicks wrote:
I'm considering a dedicated macro lens - my Helios 44-3 with extension tubes just isn't cutting it any more, and the double gauss design just doesn't seem to hold up very well when the flange focal distance is changed - I get a very soft image lacking in contrast. Thus I'm looking for a dedicated macro lens. Here's the main dilemma - 180-200mm or 100mm? I was at first thinking of getting a Canon FD 100mm macro and an EdMika EOS conversion kit, but the problem is that it's only 1:2. I saw a good deal on an FD 200mm f/4 which I hear is an excellent lens. It focuses to 1:1 while maintaining a long working distance, so that can only be good right? However, not sure how much I'd want to lug a tripod around. Will I get sharp results handheld with it? Ultimately, I'm not sure how much I'd need the extra working distance, it's just the focusing to 1:1 vs 1:2. Plus the 200mm would double as a high quality telephoto.


Handheld macrophotography at 1:1 is a big challenge, both at 100mm and 200mm focal length. The 200mm f/4 macro FD is a very good lens, I prefer it over the 100mm macro FD. If you want 100mm and 1:1 without add ons, the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 may be the best for you. It's a little heavier than the FD 100/4 but faster and built like a tank.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Longer focal lengths give more working distance WRONG!!!and less depth of fieldWRONG!!!. -- see later post

High magnifications handheld need faster shutter speeds to prevent blur due to "camera shake".

More light permits smaller aperture for more depth of field, and faster shutter speed.

Last edited by visualopsins on Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Longer focal lengths give more working distance and less depth of field.

High magnifications handheld need faster shutter speeds to prevent blur due to "camera shake".

More light permits smaller aperture for more depth of field, and faster shutter speed.


WHAT?! YOU GUYS LET ME GET AWAY WITH POSTING SUCH NONSENSE?!

The depth-of-field for identical magnifications is identical(!!!)

i.e., DOF depends ONLY on Aperture and Magnification!!! Magnification is changed by focal length; magnification is changed by distance.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:33 am    Post subject: Re: What focal length for macro? Reply with quote
AlexWicks wrote:
I'm considering a dedicated macro lens - my Helios 44-3 with extension tubes just isn't cutting it any more, and the double gauss design just doesn't seem to hold up very well when the flange focal distance is changed - I get a very soft image lacking in contrast. Thus I'm looking for a dedicated macro lens. Here's the main dilemma - 180-200mm or 100mm? I was at first thinking of getting a Canon FD 100mm macro and an EdMika EOS conversion kit, but the problem is that it's only 1:2. I saw a good deal on an FD 200mm f/4 which I hear is an excellent lens. It focuses to 1:1 while maintaining a long working distance, so that can only be good right? However, not sure how much I'd want to lug a tripod around. Will I get sharp results handheld with it? Ultimately, I'm not sure how much I'd need the extra working distance, it's just the focusing to 1:1 vs 1:2. Plus the 200mm would double as a high quality telephoto.


Alex, over time I've spoiled myself accumulating all three Canon FDn Macro lenses: 50/3.5, 100/4.0, and 200/4.0.
You would have to steal it to get my 200 macro away from me, it is that versatile / that good as far as I'm concerned.

All three are excellent lenses, and the 50's wider field of view makes it unique of course.
But IMO, once you decide to take the additional step beyond the 50mm macro, then you might as well go all the way to the 200mm.
If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't have bothered with the 100mm...would have just gotten the 50 and 200 as the 200mm does everything 100 does and much more of course.
When I'm taking a woods walk for targets of opportunity, mushrooms, etc...I mount the 200 on the camera, and take the 50 along in case of a close / wide shot opportunity. Just my personal experience and opinion of course, others mileage may vary.

Here are a couple examples of the 200mm, taken several feet away as you're not allowed to step into the big flower beds for closer shots at the Arboretum where I took these.









Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1