I just found out these can be really useful for more than just macro, which I found out that are great for getting a 1:1 ratio on your subject.What I didn't know is something like a 105mm/2.8 also makes an outstanding portrait lens along with even an all-around good prime lens. Also typically it'll be cheaper than a similar fast lens. Is this really the best type of lens for all pictures until you need some kind of zoom?
Effectively all macro means is that the lens can focus closer. It's just a normal lens other than that
>>4309483Thanks. I figured that out way longer than I should have.
>>4309479The tradeoff is that they are bigger heavier and more expensive and not as fast as a non-macro. You can usually find 70-200 zooms that are just as fast as ~100mm macros. They're good lenses but some find them a bit clinical for portraits in particular. I like using mine as a general purpose lens though, and 2.8 is fast enough for me most of the time. That said 1:1 is incredibly close and niche, if you don't do macro I'd just get a fast prime.
>>4309489I currently use a 24-120/4 lens for macro and I only get maybe 40% of my subject so yeah I would use it as a macro lens. I love going for hikes and taking pictures of little bugs and critters, mushrooms etc. very interesting things and much easier and cheaper to shoot than birds. Someday I’ll have to save up for something zoomy and lightweight like the 400/4.5 from Nikon.
>>4309489Often. The 100/2.8 screwdrive tokina is relatively small, light and cheap and has the great AF/MF focus clutch.
>>4309483Autofocus is way slower and hunting can be brutal. Notice the limiter switch has no third position for 0.5m+. It was nice of them to include the control ring that belonged on the 20/24/35/50/85 set I guess? It's kind of stupid that only some lenses have that - meanwhile the focus rings on the lenses without it are overly large. It should be standard. I set it to ISO in stills instead of using nikon's ever-clunky auto ISO/min SS setting system, and then I grab a lens that doesn't use it and i go to turn an ISO ring that isn't there. Once you get used to the ring half the Z lineup seems crippled.Also it's nice for aperture pulls doing boomer home movies without giving up instant MF. Nikon Z will not really be a complete system until they revise the ergonomics of control-ringless lenses (and 40/28 weather sealing), release premium 2.8 primes again, and release a 70-200 f4 like lense (but different, if they could pack 70-300 f4 into an internally zooming VR lens with 1:2 macro it would be boss)
>>4309479most macro lenses actually lose stops of light as they focus closer, starting at pedestrian distances such as 1:5 reproduction ratios, because of the unique design principles. at mfd this is a t4.5 lense.the Z cameras auto-correct the AE for it, but you are getting less light if you focus closer than the average long prime could
>>4309580>but you are getting less light if you focus closer than the average long prime couldThat's a pointless comparison, you CAN'T focus closer on average long primes.>the Z cameras auto-correct the AE As does F, the aperture is automatically reduced as you focus closer, at least with the lens I have. It really does not matter anyway, you do not want to shoot 1:1 at f/2.8.
>>4309619Why not? I’m stupid.
>>4309622You actually have the DOF of f2.8 at 1:1It's the light transmission of f4.5
>>4309623So it doesn’t really matter then when using a tripod or additional lighting.
>>4309483Not quite. A macro lens has better control of distortion especially when you focus closer. Regular lenses are not optimized for that.
>>4309622Because the DoF will be so shallow as to be useless.>>4309623I don't, the aperture gets reduced to around f/5.6 at close focus.
>>4309479What do you mean by 1:1 ratio on your subject?
>>4310147It means you can take a picture of a subject that is the size of your camera sensor and it will fill up the whole frame of the picture.
>>4310147It means the image projected onto the sensor is true to life size, a one to one representation. So for example if you took a picture of a ruler at 1:1 focus, one cm on the ruler will be one cm on the sensor. This of course does not mean it will be 1cm in your image, depending on resolution and cropping and whatever else you may do to the resulting image. Generally considered the minimum for a proper macro lens, despite manufacturers putting 1:2s out there and calling them “macro”.
>>4309479I have a Canon 35mm F2.8 macro lens with a built-in ring light, absolutely love it as a general purpose lens. Plus it takes fantastic bug pics.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 80DCamera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.9Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4434Image Height2979Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:05:01 21:26:26
>>4311773great shot!
>>4309479You know what I like op, shooting with the Nik Z 50 macro but sticking a stack of extension tubes under it anyway, getting a 2:1 magnification without any added distortion. Go out on the lawn and shoot the strange world in the grass jungle.
>>4311773how are you getting that close without bugs flying away with a 35
>>4314581just bee handsome
>>4309479they tend to not do too hot at or near infinity
>>4309479I wish fast Macro lenses were more popularReminder to all of you that Tamron's current lens lineup was originally going to also include a 300mm f/2.8 VC USD with 1:1 macro
>>4314670>a 300mm f/2.8 VC USD with 1:1 macroWould it have actually been 300mm at 1:1 or would they have cheated using focus breathing?
>>4314672It wasn't specified but that would require the minimum focus distance to be 0.6 meters which would require the lens itself to be quite compact for its rated speed
>>4314670fast macros don't make sense
