Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on July 24, 2017, 07:55:11 pm
-
(https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x0~articles/4849329692/P4030009.jpeg)
Voigtländer 65mm F2 E-Mount (https://www.dpreview.com/news/4849329692/voigtlander-says-new-65mm-f2-e-mount-macro-is-one-of-its-finest-lenses-ever)
This new VL Macro "rates as one of the finest in the history of Voigtländer," boasting "exceptional correction of chromatic aberration."
This spills into the topic of the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZE/ZF2 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118805.0), and (ironically) this behemoth resembles a large, crude Zeiss ... and yet is a Voigtländer of supposedly epic quality.
This falls right along with the discussion of getting true high-end macro lenses, as well as the limitations of the Zeiss (poor minimum focus distance, only 1:4 reproduction ratio). Almost as if directly responding to the topic, this new Voigtländer has a MFD of 31cm (12") achieving a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2.
Great news for Sony E-mount shooters ... not so much for Nikonians :(
Would love to see this at 1:1 ... and for the F-mount.
Still, it is an exciting lens introduction, so I would live to hear feedback from those with Sonys who acquire one.
-
They are also releasing a 35 f1.4 and a 40 f1.2 to go with this one.
Now, if they ever release the 125mm macro in E-mount...
-
They are also releasing a 35 f1.4 and a 40 f1.2 to go with this one.
Both macros?!
Now, if they ever release the 125mm macro in E-mount...
Even better if in F-mount :)
Would seriously love to see a new iteration of this lens.
-
How big does one print macro shots? What is the upper limit? The reason I ask is that IF you are going to limit the print size to say 16x20 or less, using a m 4/3 camera system makes more sense. 8)
-
Both macros?!
Even better if in F-mount :)
Would seriously love to see a new iteration of this lens.
No, not macros, see here:
http://briansmith.com/voigtlander-announces-three-new-e-mount-lenses/
Also, these 3 have been launched already and are available:
http://briansmith.com/voigtlander-manual-focus-e-mount-lenses/
-
How big does one print macro shots? What is the upper limit? The reason I ask is that IF you are going to limit the print size to say 16x20 or less, using a m 4/3 camera system makes more sense. 8)
Actually, there have been a few artists printing mammoth-sized macro images for museum display of late, Levon Biss being an exceptional example:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/04/levon-biss-miscrosculpture-insects
-
That last photo at the link looks like the common 6-spot tiger beetle, a fun insect to watch.
-
I have the Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm on order for my Sony A7RII. This essentially is the APO-Lanthar in modern form, as I understand it.
-
I have the Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm on order for my Sony A7RII. This essentially is the APO-Lanthar in modern form, as I understand it.
Would be very interested in hearing your opinion ...
-
Steve Huff First Look (Review Tidbit) (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/07/28/1st-look-the-voigtlander-65-f2-macro-apo-lanther-asph-lens)
-
Steve Huff First Look (Review Tidbit) (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/07/28/1st-look-the-voigtlander-65-f2-macro-apo-lanther-asph-lens)
Not really much information there, but as I expected, it looks like Voiglander is FINALLY starting to exploit their own legacy lenses, like the CV-125. I have this on order and will find out soon.
-
Not really much information there, but as I expected, it looks like Voiglander is FINALLY starting to exploit their own legacy lenses, like the CV-125. I have this on order and will find out soon.
I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.
-
I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.
Personally I no longer do that much 1:1 macro work, but more and more close-up work because I cannot always get enough "context" at 1:1 to kind of set the mood. So that is fine with me at !:2. There are all kinds of macro lenses and I have had and used almost all of them over the years. Just because it goes to 1:1 is not enough. It also has to have a longish focus throw and most of all it has to be APO -- highly corrected.
Here is a shot with the CV-125 APO Voigtlander and the Nikon D810.
-
What is the cut-off for counting as a macro lens? 1:2 in 36x24mm format and thus with a minimum field size of 72x48mm (about 3" by 2") seems a bit marginal compared to modern alternatives. Perhaps I am spoiled by the natural "extreme close-up" advantages of smaller formats (or to be pedantic, of the sensors with more lp/mm that smaller formats persistently offer); for example, the far more affordable Olympus 60/2.8 gives 1:1 macro at its minimum focus distance of 19mm, and so with minimum field size of about 17.3x13mm. Even allowing for different pixel counts, that is a lot more "pixels per bug".
(I know; such lenses are often used also just as sharp primes for other purposes than extreme close-ups, and field sizes like 72x48m and up are quite useful, but its seems a bit limited.)
-
Definition of "macro" varies according to the user. Some people define "macro" as "can achieve higher magnification than the average lens" and would consider 1:3 magnification to be "macro". Others insist that only 1:1 and higher magnification is "macro", and that lesser magnifications are "close up". I consider that the major additional characteristic of a "macro" lens is that it is designed to have a flat field of focus and that it is optimally corrected for close work. Just try sticking "any old lens" on extension tubes, and you will find that some lens designs don't work well for close work.
-
What is the cut-off for counting as a macro lens? 1:2 in 36x24mm format and thus with a minimum field size of 72x48mm (about 3" by 2") seems a bit marginal compared to modern alternatives.
IMO, as someone who shoots macro quite a bit, the range of what I consider to be macro lenses begins at 1:4 (which most people call 'close-up') ... and becomes definite at 1:2 (where every lens of this magnification is defined as a macro lens) ... and finally matures at 1:1 (which is considered the iconic standard, where the majority of macro lenses are found).
As macro work progresses in magnification, 2:1, 3:1, and even 4:1 ... these are considered "super-macro" magnifications levels, and are the inverse of the above-described.
As magnifications get greater still (5:1 and beyond), a person is no longer shooting 'macro' ... but is now getting into Photomicroscopy ... as almost invariably a microscope optic is deployed at this point.
Again, IMO
-
I had not realized that the lens only does 1:2. In this regard, it will have to be really good versus other 50'ish macro lenses that go to 1:1 or 1:2. With that price and weight, I would rather go for the Sony 90 macro, as the focal length is more useful to me.
1:2 doesn't bother me much. In fact, I think even 1:1 lenses are rarely used at their closest-focusing distance.
1:4 (like the Zeiss 135 Apo) is not very good ... but I would be thrilled if it was a 1:2.
To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.
If this Voigtländer 60mm macro is Zeiss-quality (or better, considering Cosina makes Zeiss lenses), this would make an incredible lens for flower/larger arthropod photography (esp. for stacks).
However, for moving subjects, or smaller arthropods requiring 1:1 (or more), then I'd have to I agree, some kind of AF macro lens that does 1:1 would be better.
Suppose it just depends on your typical preferences.
-
To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.
Suppose it just depends on your typical preferences.
Calling the Sony 90 macro "another cheap nothing lens" is a big exaggeration. Even Kevin here, when he reviewed it, said it was a very high quality lens. I am testing a copy right now, will put it through its paces this weekend.
Anyway, even if the Voigt 65 would be the best lens in the world, its focal length is useless to me.
-
To compare a Sony 90 to this lens is unrealistic IMO.
A 90mm 1:1, AF macro lens, is a dime-a-dozen. Another cheap nothing lens.
Wowza. That's quite a couple of sentences there.
I've only ever had one Voigtlander lens, a 35mm f2.5, and I stupidly sold it with the RF it was mounted on. I'd love to have a modern similarly styled lens designed for the Sony system or even for a DSLR as I could use it via an adapter. I love the look of the older Voigtlander lenses and that's the look of the lenses not the pictures you can take with them and I do wish they'd carry the build and styling on instead of changing it for their modern non RF lenses.
-
Actually, I consider most macro lenses to be high quality in their intended use. Some are extraordinary, but really, I haven't seen many awful macro lenses, from the standpoint of sharpness and field flatness. I can get some hilarious bokeh out of my old Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 preset lens for 135 format - the lens has a straight sided 6 leaf diaphragm, which can lead to a beehive look under some circumstances. But even that fossil is pretty decent, and so are the old AI/AIS Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 1:2 lenses.
-
Calling the Sony 90 macro "another cheap nothing lens" is a big exaggeration. Even Kevin here, when he reviewed it, said it was a very high quality lens. I am testing a copy right now, will put it through its paces this weekend.
Anyway, even if the Voigt 65 would be the best lens in the world, its focal length is useless to me.
Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I've seen reviews on it, and it is actually pretty good compared to its peers, rated on LenScore as just a hair better then Nikon's older 105 macro, but quite a bit below the Zeiss 100 macro (which itself is rated well below the Voigtländer 125 Apo). Seems as sharp as the Zeiss macro though.
You're right though, we all have our uses and preferences. As far as 'reviews' go, most are done by non-macro shooters, so should be taken with a grain of salt.
For me, the 100mm focal length is too short for great subject isolation, and too long to make the best use of diffused flash.
I prefer either a longer, or a shorter, focal length ... if I am shooting natural light, or with a flash, respectively.
That said, essentially the 100mm macro length is a great "starter length," as an introduction for macro shooting ... but when a person really starts getting into macro, they usually want a longer (or shorter) focal length, eventually, depending on the kind of shooting they do.
Begin a new thread topic on it, and post some images, would be interested to see how you like it.
-
Wowza. That's quite a couple of sentences there.
I've only ever had one Voigtlander lens, a 35mm f2.5, and I stupidly sold it with the RF it was mounted on. I'd love to have a modern similarly styled lens designed for the Sony system or even for a DSLR as I could use it via an adapter. I love the look of the older Voigtlander lenses and that's the look of the lenses not the pictures you can take with them and I do wish they'd carry the build and styling on instead of changing it for their modern non RF lenses.
If you look at The Phoblographer's Post (http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/09/14/review-sony-90mm-f2-8-macro-g-oss-sony-fe), the lens has very muted colors and is essentially (in his words) "a Jack of All Trades, master of none," which is why most people who shoot this macro focal length abandon it, once they get serious about macro.
They never do anything really, really well ... but they make for "fun" general purpose lenses to hike around with. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.
I believe this Voigtländer 60mm macro will be a great lens for the specific purpose of such things as flowers, and other non-moving macro subjects.
Time will tell, but am interested to see some serious reviews on it.
-
Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I've seen reviews on it, and it is actually pretty good compared to its peers, rated on LenScore as just a hair better then Nikon's older 105 macro, but quite a bit below the Zeiss 100 macro (which itself is rated well below the Voigtländer 125 Apo). Seems as sharp as the Zeiss macro though.
I'm not sure by what metric the Zeiss is better.
I tested these lenses
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro
Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro-Elmarit-R
Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G VR
Jenoptik 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR Macro
The Sony 90 is sharper on-axis than the Zeiss and has lower LoCA at wide stops:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/resolution-and-loca-comparisons-with-the-coastal-604-macro/
Zeiss focus shift is low:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-zeiss-1002-makro-planar/
But the Sony has hardly any:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-902-8-fe-macro/
There are a lot of additional tests of the two lenses in that series of blog posts. Go to the first page and follow the pingbacks at the very bottom to see them all.
Jim
-
I'm not sure by what metric the Zeiss is better.
I tested these lenses
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro
Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro-Elmarit-R
Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G VR
Jenoptik 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR Macro
The Sony 90 is sharper on-axis than the Zeiss and has lower LoCA at wide stops:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/resolution-and-loca-comparisons-with-the-coastal-604-macro/
Zeiss focus shift is low:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-zeiss-1002-makro-planar/
But the Sony has hardly any:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-902-8-fe-macro/
There are a lot of additional tests of the two lenses in that series of blog posts. Go to the first page and follow the pingbacks at the very bottom to see them all.
Jim
I am not a Zeiss macro advocate, Jim. Its poor CA is well-known to most.
Essentially, as AF macros go, the Sony is on a par with the Nikon 105, a bit sharper, but with poorer color rendering.
I personally wouldn't buy any of those lenses above, except maybe the Leica (if it fit on a Nikon), but again I don't like that focal length in a macro lens. (I prefer either longer, or shorter, for reasons stated above.)
Others might feel different.
-
I am not a Zeiss macro advocate, Jim. Its poor CA is well-known to most.
Essentially, as AF macros go, the Sony is on a par with the Nikon 105, a bit sharper, but with poorer color rendering.
I personally wouldn't buy any of those lenses above, except maybe the Leica (if it fit on a Nikon), but again I don't like that focal length in a macro lens. (I prefer either longer, or shorter, for reasons stated above.)
Others might feel different.
I thought the Nikon was on balance the worst lens in the test, and I sold my afterward.
I have found no essential difference in the colors from the Zeiss and Sony after gray card WB. I would be interested in how you define "poorer".
The Leica lens is a perfect example, as are several Leica lenses, of a lens that doesn't measure very well but has a rendering that is lovely in some circumstances (in my book, lens character is composed of adorable flaws; a perfect lens has no character).
Jim
-
I thought the Nikon was on balance the worst lens in the test, and I sold my afterward.
I have found no essential difference in the colors from the Zeiss and Sony after gray card WB. I would be interested in how you define "poorer".
I am not a lens-tester, Jim. I go by my eyes. For my sources of info, I go to LenScore, mostly.
Because (once again) a thread topic gets derailed to Sony, I have now read about 4 Sony macro reviews, there is almost not a single image taken that I would have kept, personally.
Every review I have read has been posted by guys who clearly never shoot macro, choosing mundane subjects (piles of leaves, token flowers, etc.), as they walk around taking cursory photos, just so they can fill up the pages of a review. According to my eyes, in every instance there are blown highlights, muted colors, and not-very-good critical focus, which tells me they were taken by-hand, no tripod, no real effort to take a really good macro shot.
By contrast, I have seen multiple photos taken by the Voigtländer 125, posted by multiple individuals, that "jump out" to me as simply exceptional: the color, the clarity, the rendering, everything.
I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.
The Leica lens is a perfect example, as are several Leica lenses, of a lens that doesn't measure very well but has a rendering that is lovely in some circumstances (in my book, lens character is composed of adorable flaws; a perfect lens has no character).
Jim
I've never shot the Leica, so I can't comment. I have read Michael's (and others') describe the 3D rendering, which I would be interested in myself.
I personally now use the Voigtländer 125 Apo for most 1:1 macro, but also use my 300mm f/2.8 II for long-shots.
Again, would like to see your macro shots, the colors, rendering, etc.
-
I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.
Probably not what you're looking for, but this is some of the macro work that I'm been doing recently:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/tt6.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/tt7.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/tt2.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/tt3.jpg)
Jim
-
For my sources of info, I go to LenScore, mostly.
That there says it all.
-
Because (once again) a thread topic gets derailed to Sony, . . .
This thread is about a new macro lens in Sony E mount, so it seems natural that a the closest Sony lens for the same mount comes up in the comparisons.
-
I would be interested in seeing your macro photos, as a gauge of your opinion of macro lenses, more so than your blogs about test charts.
Here's one with the 120 mm f/5.6 Nikkor AM-ED on a Linhof Master Technika with a BL S6K back. Orginal capture is 6000x64000 pixels. I have printed it twice as at 60x60 inches, and I like it at that size, but I have a hard time finding people who want prints that big.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/dw.jpg)
Jim
-
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/tt3.jpg)
Jim
Interesting ... I much prefer the color version.
Thanks for sharing.
-
What is interesting to me about this thread is the fact the Voigtlander is bringing out a new APO lens that may or may not reflect what we love about the Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar. I wish it was also for Nikon F-Mount. Also, a wide-like macro lens is not very common.The 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar, while pretty nice, is not sufficiently well corrected enough for my work.
-
This thread is about a new macro lens in Sony E mount, so it seems natural that a the closest Sony lens for the same mount comes up in the comparisons.
True.
However, the main point was a new, high-end Voigtländer macro lens ... reputed to be among the best in the entire brand's history (which is considerable) ... not another 'also-ran' AF macro lens of mid-level quality.
Here's the difference: I could be persuaded to buy a Sony camera, if this precision MF macro lens is good enough ... for some specific macro applications ... but no 'AF macro lens' on the planet could get me to buy another camera, just to use it.
Hope this clarifies.
-
What is interesting to me about this thread is the fact the Voigtlander is bringing out a new APO lens that may or may not reflect what we love about the Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar. I wish is was also for Nikon F-Mount. Also, a wide-like macro lens is not very common.The 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar, while pretty nice is not sufficiently well corrected enough for my work.
Agreed. A new Apo Lanthar macro lens, no less.
Would love to see it in Nikon F mount as well ... but am still very interested to see how it performs on a Sony.
-
Agreed. A new Apo Lanthar macro lens, no less.
Would love to see it in Nikon F mount as well ... but am still very interested to see how it performs on a Sony.
Well, I have the Sony A7RII, so I will find out soon, since B&H has shipped it already. I am not overly fond of the A7RII, but this lens might persuade to pay that camera more attention.
I am also about to receive the new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4, which is reputed to be highly corrected. We shall see.
-
Interesting ... I much prefer the color version.
Thanks for sharing.
The color version is more eye-catching, but initial reaction is in the direction of the B&W ones, which are my favorites. The B&W ones look better printed than they do on the screen. If people are going to put something on their walls, they usually want something in which they can discover new things over time. All photographs are Rohrschahs to some extent, but the B&W ones seem to fulfill that function better. I started out captioning the B&W ones, but it's more fun to see what people come up with on their own, and I think my captions might limit the appeal of the images, just like selling framed work does -- you have to find somebody who likes both the picture and the frame. If I were into commercial markets, like hotels, I'd be going for more of the eye candy, but that requires selling, and I'd rather make pictures than sell pictures, so I'll stick with individual collectors.
Thanks for looking.
Jim
-
Well, I have the Sony A7RII, so I will find out soon, since B&H has shipped it already. I am not overly fond of the A7RII, but this lens might persuade to pay that camera more attention.
Will be very interested in your findings.
I am also about to receive the new Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4, which is reputed to be highly corrected. We shall see.
I have rubbed my chin about this lens as well, though probably for other reasons.
Right now, I do a lot of reverse-macro work with Nikkor AI-S lenses ... and Otus lenses have far too-large front filter threads to reverse (not to mention the 50mm and 85mm would be pointless to reverse anyway).
While the 28mm Otus is a great wide, its optic is too large to peer through a BR-2A adapter (41mm clearance-width) and its 95mm front filter is not adapter-friendly.
However, the Milvus 35mm has a 72mm front filter which could be reversed via a SenseiPRO 72-52mm (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1068050-REG/sensei_sdrpa_7252_pro_72_52mm_aluminum_step_down.html) step-down ring, and would give me a near-Otus level ability to shoot macro at ~2:1.
When you get the 35 Milvus, kindly shoot me a PM and let me know how wide (hopefully, less than 41 mm) the actual glass is on the front element. Thanks.
-
The color version is more eye-catching, but initial reaction is in the direction of the B&W ones, which are my favorites. The B&W ones look better printed than they do on the screen. If people are going to put something on their walls, they usually want something in which they can discover new things over time. All photographs are Rohrschahs to some extent, but the B&W ones seem to fulfill that function better. I started out captioning the B&W ones, but it's more fun to see what people come up with on their own, and I think my captions might limit the appeal of the images, just like selling framed work does -- you have to find somebody who likes both the picture and the frame. If I were into commercial markets, like hotels, I'd be going for more of the eye candy, but that requires selling, and I'd rather make pictures than sell pictures, so I'll stick with individual collectors.
Thanks for looking.
Jim
Appreciate you sharing your thinking as regards to the vision.
It's not something I would pursue, but I definitely see the appeal for doing so.
Which lens did you use?
Thanks again.
-
Appreciate you sharing your thinking as regards to the vision.
It's not something I would pursue, but I definitely see the appeal for doing so.
Which lens did you use?
Thanks again.
Fuji 120/4 G-mount macro, CO 60/4, Leica 100 R-mount Apo (don't remember which was which) on GFX 50S.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Actually, I consider most macro lenses to be high quality in their intended use. Some are extraordinary, but really, I haven't seen many awful macro lenses, from the standpoint of sharpness and field flatness. I can get some hilarious bokeh out of my old Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 preset lens for 135 format - the lens has a straight sided 6 leaf diaphragm, which can lead to a beehive look under some circumstances. But even that fossil is pretty decent, and so are the old AI/AIS Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 1:2 lenses.
Nancy, what do you think about the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8? Its RR is 1: 2.32 and it has evident field curvature close up... (I like it).
Jim, with the Leica 100 apo macro I focus at f/f5.6, then I often stop down to f11. What would you say about this, regarding the focus shift?
-
This will no-doubt be controversial, so I realize I am perhaps overstating when I say:
Aside from the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar I cannot think of any other all-around macro lens that I want to use and consider a real "macro" lens, and I have had all the common ones.
Sure, I bend all kinds of other lenses to behave at least as close-up lenses, such as the various Oti from Zeiss, the Noct Nikkor, the CRT Nikkor, and on down the line. I long ago got rid of the two Zeiss macros (the 100mm and 50mm) and don't understand how others find them usable. The same with the Nikon 200mm Macro, and the various 105mm macros, although I sometimes use the 105mm VR for fast-moving insects. The Leica Elmarit-R 100mm APO macro (and the 50mm), when adapted to Nikon mount are worthy macro lenses.
And I am leaving enlarger, scanning, and LF format lenses out of this, the ones I use on a bellows, ALTHOUGH using the Cambo Mini-Actus with various exotic lenses is mostly what I do these days, especially the El Nikkor 105mm APO f/5.6, which is my most-used lens. It would be the last lens I would part with, but it is not easily used in the field, although I have taken it there.
So, this forthcoming Voigtlander 65mm Macro is eagerly awaited by me, especially since it is wider than the 125mm, and I am a close-up photographer, which may be just pefect.
-
But you are looking for the extraordinary, Michael, not merely the "quite good". I have taken many photos I like with lenses that are merely "quite good". My old Canon 180 macro +/- 1.4x extender is an example of "quite good" - and more importantly, "quite far away" when photographing cranky cottonmouths and timber rattlesnakes. ;D
-
But you are looking for the extraordinary, Michael, not merely the "quite good". I have taken many photos I like with lenses that are merely "quite good". My old Canon 180 macro +/- 1.4x extender is an example of "quite good" - and more importantly, "quite far away" when photographing cranky cottonmouths and timber rattlesnakes. ;D
As a herpetologist I caught many a diamond-back and copperhead, but not with a camera, but with my hands, some over five feet long and with a girth as thick as your calf.
-
Jim, with the Leica 100 apo macro I focus at f/f5.6, then I often stop down to f11. What would you say about this, regarding the focus shift?
f/8 would be safer:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/
Jim
-
Muntanela, I have never handled the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 (or f/2.0), let alone tried it at minimum distance. (My one and only, well loved Zeiss Distagon lens is the 21 mm f/2.8, bought used). Field curvature matters less to nature photographers, but used to be a Big F****** Deal when macro lenses were used in slide duplicators and for close-up repro of flat text or flat objects such as coins. (Showing. My. Age. Here. ....) My opinion about lenses is that if the aberration pleases you and doesn't work against the subject, it's your artistic choice. If you are working on scientific / technical / instructional photography where accuracy is paramount and "artistic" approaches are problematic if exaggerated, well, go for the most corrected lens.
Jim Kasson, those are intriguing photos of ?????????????? Layered and pulled-apart fabric? Multiple exposure of old-style screensavers programs? Yes, I think that the black-and-white versions would be more interesting to live with.
Michael, I don't need to handle the snakes for a research project. I am happy to leave both snakes and myself in the non-stressed frame of mind. Though I have wanted to handle a hognose, just to see it roll over and play dead... I just don't feel like hassling it.
-
Jim Kasson, those are intriguing photos of ?????????????? Layered and pulled-apart fabric? Multiple exposure of old-style screensavers programs? Yes, I think that the black-and-white versions would be more interesting to live with.
Nancy, I used to tell people what the Fuji GFX shots were of, but I found that it detracted from their enjoyment of them.
I will say that the 120/5.6 Nikkor/Technika/BetterLight shot was of a succulent that Don Worth hybridized. He gave me a cutting when I did this interview:
https://photography.org/interview/don-worth-interview/
Here's the story of how the succulent image was made and a pic of the plant and the gear:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/slit-scans-of-plants/
Jim
-
Michael, I don't need to handle the snakes for a research project. I am happy to leave both snakes and myself in the non-stressed frame of mind. Though I have wanted to handle a hognose, just to see it roll over and play dead... I just don't feel like hassling it.
I was part of an expedition for a university.
-
Michael, that sounds interesting and worthwhile.
And Jim K, keep people guessing!
-
f/8 would be safer:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/
Jim
Thanks Jim, I have some problems to focus at 1:2 or 1:1, on the live view of the D800E, at smaller apertures, but I'll try it.
Muntanela, I have never handled the Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 (or f/2.0), let alone tried it at minimum distance. (My one and only, well loved Zeiss Distagon lens is the 21 mm f/2.8, bought used). Field curvature matters less to nature photographers, but used to be a Big F****** Deal when macro lenses were used in slide duplicators and for close-up repro of flat text or flat objects such as coins. (Showing. My. Age. Here. ....) My opinion about lenses is that if the aberration pleases you and doesn't work against the subject, it's your artistic choice. If you are working on scientific / technical / instructional photography where accuracy is paramount and "artistic" approaches are problematic if exaggerated, well, go for the most corrected lens.
Wise thoughts :).
In my close-ups of alpine flowers, I can't say I have full controll of what the lens does. It (rarely) can give me images with blurred and not very pleasant corners, or blurred and interesting, or blurred and perceptively neutral, sometimes they aren't blurred... ;D
-
Thanks Jim, I have some problems to focus at 1:2 or 1:1, on the live view of the D800E, at smaller apertures, but I'll try it.
I didn't notice that you were using a D800E. The line-skipping magnified live view on that camera makes focusing difficult. If you can't focus at f/8, then I'd avoid shooting at f/8, and maybe even f/11. When the D850 ships, you can pick up a used D810 on the cheap. Then you'll have a better focusing experience.
Jim
-
There are some reviews available now: in these forums, by Michael Erlewine (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=119284.msg992126) and at DPReview (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9305738638/voigtlander-65mm-f2-macro-apo-lanthar-sample-gallery-and-user-impressions)