View Single Post
Old 2nd June 2009
snaarman's Avatar
snaarman snaarman is offline
Full member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Baaarkshire UK
Posts: 6,867
Thanks: 502
Thanked 417 Times in 325 Posts
Likes: 492
Liked 1,341 Times in 507 Posts
Re: Want to try Macro photography?

Maybe I can throw in some information at this point :-) I am currently borrowing Peter_D's Sigma Achromat and I have just run some comparative tests of minimum working distance from front of lens (WD) and lateral Field of View (FOV) using all the lenses I have that take a 58mm on the front, or say "Macro" on the side...

Here we go. All in mm. All at f5.6 and or wide open..

14-42 kit lens @42. WD=50. FOV = 65. OK, might need f8

40-150 kit lens @150. WD=300. FOV=55. OK - better than the 42.

Tamron 135. WD=400. FOV=45. Soft wide open, but good @ 5.6

Tamron 200. WD=500. FOV=30. Soft wide open, OK @ 5.6. Flares easily.

now 2 without the adapter

Tamron SP90. WD=250. FOV=40. Quite sharp wide open. Sharper @ 5.6

ZD 50 macro. WD=50. FOV=30. Very sharp wide open. Very very sharp @ 5.6

I won't post the shots as they were harsh conditions - metal ruler on a sunlit white windowsill - not your normal situation.. I forgive the lenses for a touch of flare. I will do some comparative shots after tea whith more controlled lighting.

You can see that the 14-42 is probably the wrong lens for the job - too close and not a lot of magnification. The 40-150 gets you more mag even though you are a foot away.

That fabulous ZD50 is incredibly sharp but you do get rather close. The Tamron SP90 is a nice compromise, but slightly less sharp than the ZD50.

Finally, putting the sigma close up lens on the Tamron 200mm gets you a lot of magnification - and 1/2 meter workign distance- but oh dear, the camera shake and zero dof

More later

Look, I'm an old man. I shouldn't be expected to put up with this.

Pete's photoblog Misleading the public since 2010.
Reply With Quote