Convincing myself, macro lens not needed?

Hammerhead64

Hammerhead64

Suspended / Banned
Messages
726
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I have taken these two shots and processed them both in the same way one using 70-300mm Macro (kindly lent by Dal), the other using my 18-200mm but cropped.

(IMO)I think the 18-200mm looks better.

Without using the exif data, which looks best for you? I not really looking for c&c on the images but reasons why you like one over the other would be useful.

#1
2807301138_d5d1b6d30f_o.jpg


#2
2807301014_4c1728cb5e_o.jpg



:thumbs: Paul
 
I don't see a huge difference between either of these images Paul - in fact they both look OK. Neither of these are macro shots though - you'd need to be producing a life size 1:1 image on the sensor for that.

It's quite common for some zoom lenses to have a 'Macro' setting, but they don't get you anywhere near close enough for true macro work, in fact the 'Macro' setting is very misleading and I'm amazed manufacturers keep getting away with it. The 'Macro setting is quite a useful thing to have in a walk around lens and can get you good close ups of flowers and larger insects, but macro it isn't. A macro lens is a dedicated animal and is always a prime. So... you need to borrow a true macro lens to answer your own question. ;)
 
No problem with lending you the lens.

I think No1 is the better shot of the 2, seems to be alot sharper and the colours seem to be a bit more vibrant, with a good level of contrast.

I'm gonna look at the exif now to see if that my lens or not lol.
 
I prefer the bottom one, for the reason that it isolates a part of the flower, and that appeals to me more.

Depends what sort of look you want to achieve though.
 
CT said:
I don't see a huge difference between either of these images Paul - in fact they both look OK. Neither of these are macro shots though - you'd need to be producing a life size 1:1 image on the sensor for that.

It's quite common for some zoom lenses to have a 'Macro' setting, but they don't get you anywhere near close enough for true macro work, in fact the 'Macro' setting is very misleading and I'm amazed manufacturers keep getting away with it. The 'Macro setting is quite a useful thing to have in a walk around lens and can get you good close ups of flowers and larger insects, but macro it isn't. A macro lens is a dedicated animal and is always a prime. So... you need to borrow a true macro lens to answer your own question. ;)
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, the final part about only primes can be true macro I believe is slightly incorrect. Nikon made the 70-180mm Micro, which is almost 1:1 (with the addition of the 6T filter I believe it does achieve this).
 
I think 1 is better, sharper and more defined colours.
 
I have the 70-300 macro and the 150 macro the 70-300 doesnt compare - you have to be miles away and it only gives 1:2 magnification. the 150m macro you only need 38cm min. to focus to give the 1:1.over all its a much sharper lens, no rotating front elements, quiet.

even if you invest in a 50mm macro it will surpass the 70-300.
 
I'll have a stab and say that you think the bottom looks better and thats with your lens (non) macro. I think the first one is a better macro, all it needs is an adjustment of levels to bring out the vibrant colours.

Come on give us the answer..........
 
taz said:
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, the final part about only primes can be true macro I believe is slightly incorrect. Nikon made the 70-180mm Micro, which is almost 1:1 (with the addition of the 6T filter I believe it does achieve this).
Click to expand...

This zoom goes to 1:1.32 and so makes CT's statement slightly correct. The addition of the 6T, as you say, brings the reproduction to 1:1 but diopters or tubes are separate items.

Any "prime" macro is effectively a zoom as the focal length shortens as the reproduction ratio increases...the difference being that the focal length and focus mechanism are not independant, one changes as a result of the other.

Bob
 
I can't comment on the techie stuff,but put simply,how close do you want to get,how much detail do you want to get into your pictures? If you prefer the pictures that you have taken( and I think they're both lovely) then you probably don't need a lens that gets any closer,if you do then borrow the other lenses and do some comparison shots. Just my 2p worth.
 
CT ..... Good, Positve answer as usual. I have spent alot of time looking at 1:1 macro lenses (mostly Sigma 105mm f2.8) so I realise that the 70-300 isn't a true macro. However, although this wasn't a very scientific test of the lenses it proved to me a number of things:

1. Neither image is what I want to achieve.
2. The answer to my question is that #1 was taken with the 18-200mm non macro lens and the image cropped. IMHO this is closer to what I want to achieve and is therefore the better image.
3. The Sigma 70-300mm retails for about £100 (non APO version) and although on my Sony I felt it was a good lens. The Nikon has a RRP of about £550 (street price £350 approx) but (and I appreciate that this lens is a general purpose lens, hence it's quality may still me a bit soft). This shows me, that paying the extra money for a lens has its benefits.

Added to this is that the Nikon lens was so much smoother to focus and a joy to use in doing this it has convinced me that I should go for another Nikon VR lens (probably the 105mm f2.8 VR). Trouble is getting the funds from the bank manager (my missus) to purchase it. :bang: :thumbsdown:

Is anyone surprised by the difference of the images ..... I know I was. :thinking:
 
Well I'm not really surprised tbh Paul. Manufacturers discovered some years ago that by adding this 'macro' position to to the lens focus travel, the lens elements move forward that little bit further to give you a closer focusing distance. It's a bit of a fudge however you look at it, and whilst it can be useful, as I said earlier, I'm not surprised that a lens operating within it's 'normal' focus range would be the sharper one.

There's no doubt that generally speaking, you get what you pay for where lenses are concerned, and I hear you when you talk about focusing quality as one of the considerations. Good luck with the bank manager. :D
 
Hi Paul,

Difficult to tell which image is best as the exposures differ (#1 is darker) and appear to have been taken at different apertures (#1 has significantly more DOF). I'm sure your existing lens will do fine, but rather than lose precious pixels through cropping, why not invest in a high quality doublet construction close-up lens that attaches to your existing lens like a filter? It's a very cost effective way to achieve high quality magnification.

Athough an Olympus user, I use a Nikon 6T close-up lens and it's a cracker!

Cheers,

John
 
Hi John, :wave:

I was using a Raynox 250 with my Sony kit but this was a complete b****r to focus due to narrow DOF. The problem now is that this won't fit my Nikon18-200mm VR (only fits up 67mm). I am toying with the idea to get a Sigma 50mm f1.8 to accomodate this for the short term. I think at the end of the day after using the Nikon lens I will only be happy when I can get the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR lens though. :bang:

Paul
 
Ah, sorry Paul, I was overlooking the filter size of the 18-200mm! Sounds like you are really set on the 105mm f2.8 and I know what it's like - once you realise what you want nothing else will do. Let's hope you acquire the necessary funds soon! :)

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top