Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear

macro lens and APS-C

(1/3) > >>

PrintPd:
I was just reading the thread about  Macro Lens Comparison but that is closed now. I have full frame cameras: Leica Q and Leica M9 (with a Macro-Elmar M 90/4 and a Visoflex) great for almost everything but not real macro and tele. I also use a Sigma DP3 (Merill) which can make good semi-macros but the low quality of its screen and the lack of a viewfinder makes it pretty unusable outdoors for close ups. Also the focal length is too short (50mm > 75mm FF).
I had a Sony Nex7 and used it for many weeklong back-backing trips with my macro-Elmar and got good quality shots up to 1:2 (with extension rings). But then I dropped it in a mountain lake; the lens was fine but not the camera. I looked at the Sony A7RII but I think I am preferring for macro APS-C as it gives 1.5x lens factor and hence require 1.5x less magnification to fill the same object in a frame. That has also an advantage in depth of field except the limit of f-stops causing diffraction is lower.
In my opinion a focal length of 120-150mm (FF) is optimal as it gives enough distance. I used 180 and 200mm macros before but find often some foreground is then interfering. So for APS-C a 90 to 105mm lens would be great (135 to 157.5 equivalent). I wonder how the macro lens ranking mostly done in FF applies to APS-C. The Macro Elmar 90mm is an very light lens but looses when approaching 0.5x. Also I am happy with manual focusing but many modern macro lenses have autofocus - are I missing something?
I was waiting for the replacement of the Sony A6000. I am disappointed that the A6300 has no IBIS and the sensor technology of that camera has likely lower dynamic range than the A7RII. I find dynamic range quite important for macros as it is easy to oversaturate 1 or 2 color channels especially with flowers. The new sensor technology recently announced by Panasonic/Fuji based on organic sensor material would be great with much higher saturation points but who knows how long that would take to be in a camera one can buy. Any other suggestions?

NancyP:
I think that the question is first, which camera. Then, which lens. I liked my Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 on my 60D - good focal length for not having extraneous stuff between you and flower - most flowers were at 1:2 to 1:3, though. Tilt screen is a GREAT macro accessory, as is a tripod without center column (flatten legs out to 180 degrees to sit tripod flat on ground) for flower and mushroom photography, unless you carry both tripod and beanbag. I have seen the Sony full frame new 90mm macro lens get some rave reviews from A7R/R2 users. But if your 90mm macro-Elmar is still working, just get another Sony APS-C if you do mostly tripod work. You don't need autofocus for plants / flowers, only for moving creatures (depending - I sometimes just set manual focus at the desired magnification and follow the bee or other slow mover from plant to plant). An IBIS would be wonderful for hand-held  semi-macro, but if you aren't hand holding, you don't need IBIS, just a remote shutter release and a tripod. Maybe the A6000 is for you - there's a lot of bells and whistles in the newly announced A6300 that you might not need.

I am curious - how do you handle the battery life problem of non-SLRs on week-long hikes? Just start off with a bunch of charged batteries? Charger plus one of those super-batteries people use for recharging phones? Solar? I should add, I tend to judge all mirrorless cameras by my experience with the Sigma DPM3, a great sensor and lens attached to a lousy LCD and worse battery. BTW, I have used a 52mm 2-element achromat +5 diopter lens on the front of the DP3M with decent results.

PrintPd:

--- Quote from: NancyP on February 08, 2016, 07:22:01 pm ---I think that the question is first, which camera. Then, which lens. I liked my Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 on my 60D - good focal length for not having extraneous stuff between you and flower - most flowers were at 1:2 to 1:3, though. Tilt screen is a GREAT macro accessory, as is a tripod without center column (flatten legs out to 180 degrees to sit tripod flat on ground) for flower and mushroom photography, unless you carry both tripod and beanbag. I have seen the Sony full frame new 90mm macro lens get some rave reviews from A7R/R2 users. But if your 90mm macro-Elmar is still working, just get another Sony APS-C if you do mostly tripod work. You don't need autofocus for plants / flowers, only for moving creatures (depending - I sometimes just set manual focus at the desired magnification and follow the bee or other slow mover from plant to plant). An IBIS would be wonderful for hand-held  semi-macro, but if you aren't hand holding, you don't need IBIS, just a remote shutter release and a tripod. Maybe the A6000 is for you - there's a lot of bells and whistles in the newly announced A6300 that you might not need.

I am curious - how do you handle the battery life problem of non-SLRs on week-long hikes? Just start off with a bunch of charged batteries? Charger plus one of those super-batteries people use for recharging phones? Solar? I should add, I tend to judge all mirrorless cameras by my experience with the Sigma DPM3, a great sensor and lens attached to a lousy LCD and worse battery. BTW, I have used a 52mm 2-element achromat +5 diopter lens on the front of the DP3M with decent results.

--- End quote ---
Yes I need to make a decision which camera for macro. I like and have tripods(3 different sizes) but not for multi day hikes. So IBIS would be a help for handheld.
About battery life: for my Sigma I take around 8 batteries with me. Still less weight than a battery/solar charger. Not great and often only a few pic left on the last day! Plus mostly I carry a Leica along. I would like to find an efficient and light solar charger but I have not found one yet which is both.

John Koerner:

--- Quote from: PrintPd on February 08, 2016, 06:11:48 pm ---I was just reading the thread about  Macro Lens Comparison but that is closed now. I have full frame cameras: Leica Q and Leica M9 (with a Macro-Elmar M 90/4 and a Visoflex) great for almost everything but not real macro and tele. I also use a Sigma DP3 (Merill) which can make good semi-macros but the low quality of its screen and the lack of a viewfinder makes it pretty unusable outdoors for close ups. Also the focal length is too short (50mm > 75mm FF).
I had a Sony Nex7 and used it for many weeklong back-backing trips with my macro-Elmar and got good quality shots up to 1:2 (with extension rings). But then I dropped it in a mountain lake; the lens was fine but not the camera. I looked at the Sony A7RII but I think I am preferring for macro APS-C as it gives 1.5x lens factor and hence require 1.5x less magnification to fill the same object in a frame. That has also an advantage in depth of field except the limit of f-stops causing diffraction is lower.
In my opinion a focal length of 120-150mm (FF) is optimal as it gives enough distance. I used 180 and 200mm macros before but find often some foreground is then interfering. So for APS-C a 90 to 105mm lens would be great (135 to 157.5 equivalent). I wonder how the macro lens ranking mostly done in FF applies to APS-C. The Macro Elmar 90mm is an very light lens but looses when approaching 0.5x. Also I am happy with manual focusing but many modern macro lenses have autofocus - are I missing something?
I was waiting for the replacement of the Sony A6000. I am disappointed that the A6300 has no IBIS and the sensor technology of that camera has likely lower dynamic range than the A7RII. I find dynamic range quite important for macros as it is easy to oversaturate 1 or 2 color channels especially with flowers. The new sensor technology recently announced by Panasonic/Fuji based on organic sensor material would be great with much higher saturation points but who knows how long that would take to be in a camera one can buy. Any other suggestions?

--- End quote ---


I would say is depends if you really do very close (1:1) macro or just "close-ups" using a macro. Like, say, of flowers.

AF becomes less relevant the closer and closer you get.

If you're looking for a cheap, sharp, nice macro lens in the 90mm range (esp for hand-holding) the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di is a fine choice, but I don't think they make them for Leica, and it is not really very clear what camera you have or intend to use now, as you've mentioned several.

What camera you have can remove a lot of choices from the playing field ... or add choices ... depending on which way you go.

Jack

muntanela:
For mountain flowers  (and lakes), on APS-C and FF could be very interesting the Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ( Minimum Focus Distance 17 cm, Minimum Working Distance 6 cm, Image Ratio  1:2.36, weight 480 g). On APS-C you would have less field curvature but also less angle of view.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page