Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on January 07, 2016, 01:09:01 pm
-
MACRO CHAMP: The Most Bang for the Buck
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/January/sigma.png)
The Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro Lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837868-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html)
I just completed a blog entry (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) about macro lenses, from the perspective of a nature photographer (not studio photographer). One fellow here (Michael Erlewine) wrote a wonderful piece (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98645.0) about some exotic macro lenses, which article I still have bookmarked, as it was really quite informative.
However, Mr. Erlewine's perspective came from a studio photographer, where you have all the time in the world to set up, get the light right, and focus ... whereas mine comes from the perspective of selecting a macro lens for out in the field, trying to photograph live subjects, where your window of opportunity is fleeting, and your subjects may be moving.
I have shot 4 different Canon macro lenses (100 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8L, 180 f/3.5L, and the MPE-65) over the last 8 years.
I have typically held the belief that moving to a 3rd party macro lens was a step down (if not in image quality, in build quality).
However, all of that changed after reading enough reviews on the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO macro lens, and after purchasing it, I can honestly say it's the best macro lens I have ever put at the end of my camera.
So I thought I would create a blog post (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13), giving a detailed breakdown + list of important features (comparing 10 different macro lenses) that I hope proves both interesting and useful to those who are rubbing their chin about their next macro lens purchase :)
Hope it proves useful to some,
Jack
-
Link broken
-
Link broken
Oops :-[
Fixed ;D
-
MACRO CHAMP: The Most Bang for the Buck
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/January/sigma.png)
The Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro Lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837868-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html)
I just completed a blog entry (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) about macro lenses, from the perspective of a nature photographer (not studio photographer). One fellow here (Michael Erlewine) wrote a wonderful piece (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98645.0) about some exotic macro lenses, which article I still have bookmarked, as it was really quite informative.
However, Mr. Erlewine's perspective came from a studio photographer, where you have all the time in the world to set up, get the light right, and focus ... whereas mine comes from the perspective of selecting a macro lens for out in the field, trying to photograph live subjects, where your window of opportunity is fleeting, and your subjects may be moving.
I have shot 4 different Canon macro lenses (100 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8L, 180 f/3.5L, and the MPE-65) over the last 8 years.
I have typically held the belief that moving to a 3rd party macro lens was a step down (if not in image quality, in build quality).
However, all of that changed after reading enough reviews on the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO macro lens, and after purchasing it, I can honestly say it's the best macro lens I have ever put at the end of my camera.
So I thought I would create a blog post (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13), giving a detailed breakdown + list of important features (comparing 10 different macro lenses) that I hope proves both interesting and useful to those who are rubbing their chin about their next macro lens purchase :)
Hope it proves useful to some,
Jack
Jack,
Thanks for posting you evaluations. I have the Sigma 180 f/2.8 and the Nikon 105 f/2.8 AFS and have been quite pleased with them and agree with your findings. The Sigma 180 is a beast, but it handles well. Glad that you confirmed that the Nikon 105 performs well. I was a bit uneasy about it's being made in China.
Regards,
Bill
-
Jack,
Thanks for posting you evaluations. I have the Sigma 180 f/2.8 and the Nikon 105 f/2.8 AFS and have been quite pleased with them and agree with your findings. The Sigma 180 is a beast, but it handles well. Glad that you confirmed that the Nikon 105 performs well. I was a bit uneasy about it's being made in China.
Regards,
Bill
Nice one-two punch combo :)
What do you shoot mostly, Bill?
When do you prefer to use the one, rather than the other?
Jack
-
Hi John, your review was very useful. I also shoot macro, but not exclusively. I found your review comments and descriptions helpful because I was wondering about the Canon ultra macro (if that is the right term) and I only know one person who used the Canon 1:1 - 1:5 and he didn't mention the reality that if it is purchased, one will likely have to get the specialized light to accompany it. Sometimes I like to shoot very close up shots of plant and/or insect materials to get unusual colours and textures and your review has given me more to think about. Also appreciated your discussion of the weights of the lenses.
Sean
-
Hi John, your review was very useful. I also shoot macro, but not exclusively.
Hi Sean, thanks for taking the time to read it.
I found your review comments and descriptions helpful because I was wondering about the Canon ultra macro (if that is the right term) and I only know one person who used the Canon 1:1 - 1:5 and he didn't mention the reality that if it is purchased, one will likely have to get the specialized light to accompany it.
The Canon MPE-65 is essentially a paperweight ... unless you purchase macro rails and/or a flash.
I prefer the less-expensive option of macro rails and have been able to get shots like this (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/146/344/medium) with natural light:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000344_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/146/344/medium)
You must keep in mind this is a camouflaged creature, that holds perfectly still, and that this is an 8-shot stack taken from a tripod/macro rail combo.
There is no way I could hand-hold and get this kind of shot ... unless I had a flash.
Moreover, with a flash on this lens, you can't just use it the way it came out of the box either.
Worse, while there are some cheapo diffusers you can buy for it, none of them really work.
Instead, you will have to make some sort of customized macro rig (http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-macro-rigs.html) to get the most out of this lens. (Scroll all the way down, because there are some pretty nice ones.)
Sometimes I like to shoot very close up shots of plant and/or insect materials to get unusual colours and textures and your review has given me more to think about. Also appreciated your discussion of the weights of the lenses.
Sean
Thank you, I appreciate yours also.
From 1:1 - 2:1, I can put a set of extension tubes on the end of the Sigma 180 and equal anything out of the MPE 65, and be able to do so from a more comfortable distance away.
However, beyond that, the MPE 65 is the way to go. While there are wonderful reverse-mount + prime combinations that can achieve greater-than-1:1 magnification, nothing allows you the smooth transition from 1:1 to 5:1 than going with the MPE 65.
If you spend a lot of time within that range, and once you tweak your accessories to perfection, you will take mind-boggling macros that cannot be achieved with any other commercial lens.
People are always amazed by such images, because they simply can't see small objects that close with their eyes.
Jack
-
Thanks for the review, it appears to be a very sweet lens indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've taken some "closeup" shots while in the field (never true macro) and have been contemplating if I should explore macro photography at some point in the near future. Your blog comparison on todays macro lens gear was to me most informative, useful and interesting. I especially appreciate the criteria you decided to use in the comparison. These criteria would also be a good guide to helping me evaluate future lens purchases, not necessarily macro lens gear. Thanks for taking the time and effort to put this together.
-
Thanks for the review, it appears to be a very sweet lens indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
It is ... and I need to upgrade my camera to match it now :-\
-
I've taken some "closeup" shots while in the field (never true macro) and have been contemplating if I should explore macro photography at some point in the near future. Your blog comparison on todays macro lens gear was to me most informative, useful and interesting. I especially appreciate the criteria you decided to use in the comparison. These criteria would also be a good guide to helping me evaluate future lens purchases, not necessarily macro lens gear. Thanks for taking the time and effort to put this together.
You're welcome and thank you for taking the time to read it and comment.
That is exactly what I had hoped it would be :)
Jack
-
One fellow here (Michael Erlewine) wrote a wonderful piece (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98645.0) about some exotic macro lenses, which article I still have bookmarked, as it was really quite informative.
However, Mr. Erlewine's perspective came from a studio photographer, where you have all the time in the world to set up, get the light right, and focus ... whereas mine comes from the perspective of selecting a macro lens for out in the field, trying to photograph live subjects, where your window of opportunity is fleeting, and your subjects may be moving.
Well, just to set the records straight, actually I shoot outdoors all spring and summer and in the studio during the long cold winters here in Michigan. And I shoot all kinds of critters, not just still life.
As for lenses, I use many lenses for my work, which tends to be more close-up than macro. I like the context of close-up rather than the filling-of-the-frame that most macro demands. You may have seen one of my articles on the industrial Nikkors and related lenses and got the idea that I shoot everything on a bellows or rail, but I use many other, more common, lenses as well. I do tend to use APO (highly-corrected) lenses.
I have many free videos on technique here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDr8mWUwrzi4bxY978O1DQykUrj-S2I
And free e-books here:
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Photography
-
Nice one-two punch combo :)
What do you shoot mostly, Bill?
When do you prefer to use the one, rather than the other?
Jack
I have been shooting mainly close up (not true macro) shots of flowers in their native habitat. Since getting the Sigma, I have been using it more extensively in order to gain experience with it. The results have been excellent. Since is is now winter in northern Illinois, my outdoor shooting has been curtained recently. The increased working distance with the 180 is invaluable when one can't get close enough to the flower. The orchid show is coming to the Chicago Botanic Garden soon and I will be using the Sigma 180 when obstructions prevent getting close to the flowers. When I can approach the flower, I will likely use the 105 mm since it is easier to operate. The heft of the 180 is a drawback, but like you I would rather have the speed and quality of the Sigma over some of the less capable lenses you reviewed.
Bill
-
Well, just to set the records straight, actually I shoot outdoors all spring and summer and in the studio during the long cold winters here in Michigan. And I shoot all kinds of critters, not just still life.
My mistake then, thanks for the correction.
(All I saw in the article were garden flowers.)
As for lenses, I use many lenses for my work, which tends to be more close-up than macro. I like the context of close-up rather than the filling-of-the-frame that most macro demands. You may have seen one of my articles on the industrial Nikkors and related lenses and got the idea that I shoot everything on a bellows or rail, but I use many other, more common, lenses as well. I do tend to use APO (highly-corrected) lenses.
I tend to do more close-up than extreme myself.
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts of the Sigma 180 APO macro compared to the Voigtlander 135mm macro ...
I have many free videos on technique here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDr8mWUwrzi4bxY978O1DQykUrj-S2I
And free e-books here:
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Photography
What a wonderful and worthwhile collection :)
I have added links to your material to my Resources (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/resources.php) page.
I can empathize with the amount of work that went into your material ... as I have put about 3 years' worth of work into my own site, which just recently came to life ... and I still feel I have a lifetime of work still left to do on it.
Since my own passion is macro photography, I will go through each one of your macro videos and ebooks with interest, as I can tell I can learn a great deal from you.
Hats off to you for the time, effort, and care that went into such a compilation ... and thank you for making your experiences available (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/hatsoff.gif)
Jack
-
Cute little spider there, nicely camouflaged - well done!
Thanks for the review. The Sigma f/2.8 180 has struck me as being highly desirable as long as you don't mind the bulk and weight. I have the old Canon 180 3.5 macro, a nice lens with attractive bokeh wide open, 20+ year old design, but I bought it before the Sigma came out. Sigma a better deal all around.
-
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts of the Sigma 180 APO macro compared to the Voigtlander 135mm macro ...
You mean the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar. I don't have the Sigma, so not sure how it compares. Nothing compares to the Zeiss Otus 55mm and 85mm, and 135mm (just about as good), IMO. I use the Otus 55 with the least extension (5.8mm) a lot.
Voigtland has the 125mm APO Macro, the 90mm APO Macro, and the 180mm APO (not macro), all of which are good.
-
You mean the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar.
Yes.
I don't have the Sigma, so not sure how it compares. Nothing compares to the Zeiss Otus 55mm and 85mm, and 135mm (just about as good), IMO. I use the Otus 55 with the least extension (5.8mm) a lot.
Not macro lenses, however, so outside the topic. (No 1:1)
For nature photography no AF or IS either, and the first two lack the reach to be versatile.
Voigtland has the 125mm APO Macro, the 90mm APO Macro, and the 180mm APO (not macro), all of which are good.
Thanks.
Would be most interested in the 125 APO Macro specs.
The 680° of focusing from 0-to-infinity, while an enhancement for some applications, could be a detriment in others (certain live subjects), with no AF/IS.
For flowers, portraiture, or wildlife that "stays still" this would be ideal.
-
I have the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro no-IS/VR manual focus lens, and I love it for what it is best at - relatively static shots at a medium distance - it is handholdable under certain circumstances at 1/125 or faster, I shoot in burst mode and usually one of the shots is free of motion artifact at 100%. It is a true APO and the resolution is very good. It is a very good lens for traveling light, a lens to take on a 5 or 10 mile wildflower hike (typical complement is the 6D, 125mm V macro, and for possible landscape the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, which is darn good stopped down and a decent lens to use for pano, plus my 3 pound tripod/head, polarizer, wired shutter releases, pop-up reflector, and hiking necessaries).
Some insects can benefit from more distance, and the 180 is a great focal length. 180mm is sometimes inconvenient for plant and fungus photography due to the need to sweep intervening stems/leaves out of the way. The Voigtlander optics are so far superior to the old Canon 180 that my 180 leaves home mostly for snake and butterfly expeditions. I slap the 1.4x teleconverter on the 180 for snakes when I expect to be finding timber rattlesnakes or (always grumpy) cottonmouths, distance is good when you are observing venomous snakes. I will take the slight optical degradation of a teleconverter over the possibility of upsetting the snake.
-
Would be most interested in the 125 APO Macro specs.
Here are some 40+ lenses that can be used for close-up and macro work:
http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/e-books/Lenses%20for%20Close-up%20and%20Macro%20Photography%20V1.1.pdf
-
You mean the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar. I don't have the Sigma, so not sure how it compares. Nothing compares to the Zeiss Otus 55mm and 85mm, and 135mm (just about as good), IMO. I use the Otus 55 with the least extension (5.8mm) a lot.
Voigtland has the 125mm APO Macro, the 90mm APO Macro, and the 180mm APO (not macro), all of which are good.
Michael,
Thanks for the many posts and articles which you share with the photographic community free of charge. I have found them very informative.
Highly corrected is not well defined, but chromatic aberration seems to be a major component. Some say CA is of little concern, since it can be corrected in post as claimed here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107035.msg881616#msg881616). But that is not true as pointed out by Bart and others. What is your take?
Related to longitudinal chromatic aberration is spherochromaticism, the chromatic variant of spherical aberration. In the older Zeiss literature, they reported that their apochromatic microscopic objectives were corrected for chromatic aberration for 3 colors and spherical aberration for 2 colors. This is Abbe's (http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/PageMill_Resources/sphero-chromatism.htm) original definition of apochromatic correction. Some (http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/optics/objectiveintro.html) current apochromats are corrected for 4-5 colors for chromatic aberration and 3-4 colors for spherical aberration. I don't know how this applies to camera lenses.
Regards,
Bill
-
Michael,
Highly corrected is not well defined, but chromatic aberration seems to be a major component. Some say CA is of little concern, since it can be corrected in post as claimed here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107035.msg881616#msg881616). But that is not true as pointed out by Bart and others. What is your take?
There is no standard for APO (apochromatic) and many companies take advantage of it, which is foolish on their part, unless they don’t know better. Companies like Voigtlander, Coastal Optics, Leica, Nikon industrials (some), and of course (recently) Zeiss have what I feel are actual APO lenses.
I had the Coastal Optics 60mm for years, but sold it because for a number of reason, like the horrible hot-spot. IMO, it had more like the flat s-log feel of some of my Sony video cameras. That, and the fact that it had a terribly small focus throw for a camera that needs just the opposite. I used to put it on a rail because of that. And lastly, for my work (in the forests with mottled light), I seemed to me to not do well in those conditions. It was not thought through well-enough when it was designed, IMO.
The Leica Emarit-R 100mm APO, which I converted to Nikon, is well corrected, as are a number of enlarger/industrial lenses from Nikon like the El Nikkor 105mm APO and the Printing Nikkors. I got rid of my Nikon macro lenses, except for the 60mm Micro and the PC-E 45mm long ago. They lacked correction.
Same with the earlier Zeiss 100mm and 50mm Makro-Planars. They are sharp enough, but just are not corrected well enough for my eyes. I believe some Zeiss have just been repackaged in a new wrapper, but are the same old uncorrected lens designs. Go figure.
The Zeiss Otus 55mm, 85mm, and 135mm (APO as far as I am concerned), and hopefully the new 28mm APO (on order) are the best I have ever used and they are not even macro or close up lenses. I have to put the tiniest extension on them (5.8mm) to get what I need sometimes.
That’s my take. I figured out years ago that a sharp lens was considered sharp not just because of resolution or acutance, but also because of a high level of correction. Without it, except for specialty lenses, I seldom use anything but real APO lenses anymore.
-
There is no standard for APO (apochromatic) and many companies take advantage of it, which is foolish on their part, unless they don’t know better. Companies like Voigtlander, Coastal Optics, Leica, Nikon industrials (some), and of course (recently) Zeiss have what I feel are actual APO lenses.
Same with the earlier Zeiss 100mm and 50mm Makro-Planars. They are sharp enough, but just are not corrected well enough for my eyes. I believe some Zeiss have just been repackaged in a new wrapper, but are the same old uncorrected lens designs. Go figure.
The Zeiss Otus 55mm, 85mm, and 135mm (APO as far as I am concerned), and hopefully the new 28mm APO (on order) are the best I have ever used and they are not even macro or close up lenses. I have to put the tiniest extension on them (5.8mm) to get what I need sometimes.
That’s my take. I figured out years ago that a sharp lens was considered sharp not just because of resolution or acutance, but also because of a high level of correction. Without it, except for specialty lenses, I seldom use anything but real APO lenses anymore.
Michael,
Thanks for sharing your vast experience. I have the Zeiss 135 apo and am very happy with it, but I don't see a marked difference from my Sigma 180. The Zeiss focuses to 1:4 and is useful for some flower shots. Your suggestion of 5.8 mm of extension sounds good. What rings to you use? I don't know if it corrected for short shooting distances. Sigma calls the 180 macro apochromatic, but I am doubtful as they use the term very loosely for their consumer grade zoom lenses. I don't think that I am as discriminating as you and if you get the chance to use the Sigma please post the findings on your web site.
Regards,
Bill
-
I have the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro no-IS/VR manual focus lens, and I love it for what it is best at - relatively static shots at a medium distance - it is handholdable under certain circumstances at 1/125 or faster, I shoot in burst mode and usually one of the shots is free of motion artifact at 100%.
I remember when Michael's article first came out, both of us were interested in this lens :)
However, I went with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO, because it simply does so much more than the elder lens, with (I would wager, given its stats) equal-level optics.
It is a true APO and the resolution is very good. It is a very good lens for traveling light, a lens to take on a 5 or 10 mile wildflower hike (typical complement is the 6D, 125mm V macro, and for possible landscape the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, which is darn good stopped down and a decent lens to use for pano, plus my 3 pound tripod/head, polarizer, wired shutter releases, pop-up reflector, and hiking necessaries).
I am not sure the Sigma is a "true APO" (whatever that means, if there's no standardized definition), but it is labeled as such ... and has rave reviews from all who have actually put their hands on it.
However, I cannot say I "travel light" with it, given its weight of 3.6 lb (although it feels like a toy compared to the Sigma 150-600, which weighs 6.3 lb :o).
But I don't mind, as it's clamped on my RRS tripod, and slung over my shoulder, and when it comes to shooting time the tripod is carrying the weight, so I just get to enjoy the reach, the excellent optics, plus the modern amenities.
Some insects can benefit from more distance, and the 180 is a great focal length.
Agreed. Some insects. The occasional, unafraid bird, etc.
180mm is sometimes inconvenient for plant and fungus photography due to the need to sweep intervening stems/leaves out of the way.
True ... or very low-to-the-ground, tiny flowers if you're trying to get an upward perspective.
The Voigtlander optics are so far superior to the old Canon 180 that my 180 leaves home mostly for snake and butterfly expeditions.
Sadly, if you look at the LenScore stats, every modern macro lens is "far superior" to the old Canon 180 :(
I slap the 1.4x teleconverter on the 180 for snakes when I expect to be finding timber rattlesnakes or (always grumpy) cottonmouths, distance is good when you are observing venomous snakes. I will take the slight optical degradation of a teleconverter over the possibility of upsetting the snake.
Bah, you don't need an extender on a 180mm to photograph snakes. I took this photo (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/290/474/medium) of a pygmy rattler with the 100mm f/2.8L, from about 18" away ;D
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000474_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/290/474/medium)
Snakes can only strike maybe 1/3rd their body length, and US pit vipers have to coil to strike.
From a coiled position, it is quite easy to stay well out of their striking range and take a photo of them.
Cheers,
Jack
-
Michael,
Thanks for sharing your vast experience. I have the Zeiss 135 apo and am very happy with it, but I don't see a marked difference from my Sigma 180. The Zeiss focuses to 1:4 and is useful for some flower shots. Your suggestion of 5.8 mm of extension sounds good. What rings to you use? I don't know if it corrected for short shooting distances. Sigma calls the 180 macro apochromatic, but I am doubtful as they use the term very loosely for their consumer grade zoom lenses. I don't think that I am as discriminating as you and if you get the chance to use the Sigma please post the findings on your web site.
Regards,
Bill
I didn't choose to buy the Sigma 180, for some of the reason you mentioned. I would be surprised if that lens is comparable to the Zeiss 135mm APO. I might pick up one sometime, but not sure about that. I don't use extension on the Zeiss 135mm. It does not take it well. I use it on the Otus 55mm, the Nikon K-1 ring, which is 5.8mm.
-
In my work, the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar is the single best all-round macro lens IMO, UNTIL the advent of the Zeiss Otus-type APO, lenses, which are not macro or close-up lenses, but they are so good that I make them work that way, as much as possible.
-
From all tests I have seen , the Sigma macros are very good, among the best lenses.
Here is a list of the ten best lenses: http://www.objektivtest.se/nyheter/tio-av-varldens-skarpaste-objektiv/
What makes that list a bit interesting is that the lens tests were done at Hasselblad by the guy who is in charge of Hasselblad's lens design using Hasselblad's testing bench.
Best regards
Erik
Michael,
Thanks for sharing your vast experience. I have the Zeiss 135 apo and am very happy with it, but I don't see a marked difference from my Sigma 180. The Zeiss focuses to 1:4 and is useful for some flower shots. Your suggestion of 5.8 mm of extension sounds good. What rings to you use? I don't know if it corrected for short shooting distances. Sigma calls the 180 macro apochromatic, but I am doubtful as they use the term very loosely for their consumer grade zoom lenses. I don't think that I am as discriminating as you and if you get the chance to use the Sigma please post the findings on your web site.
Regards,
Bill
-
I would be surprised if that lens is comparable to the Zeiss 135mm APO. I might pick up one sometime, but not sure about that.
According to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org), you are correct, from the perspective of well-controlled evaluation:
- Resolving Power:
1. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1274
2. Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro - 1078
- Bokeh:
1. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1359
2. Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro - 1050
- Color:
1. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 973
2. Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro - 964
- Contrast:
1. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1207
2. Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro - 1017
Keep in mind, that a score of 1,000 is exemplary.
Keep in mind, you're not talking about a macro lens anymore either.
That said, when hiking the mountains, fields, or desert for wildlife (which is the subject of the post, as a totally different animal from studio photography), the limited reach, exaggerated M-focus-rotation becomes a hindrance in many settings, would often render these extreme resolution figures quite a bit less IMO.
On stationary targets, however, (that don't require 1:1), the Zeiss looks like a wonderful tool.
But, here again, it is not a macro lens and doesn't go 1:1.
If you slap extension tubes on the Zeiss, to make it a "macro" (again, to qualify it for the the thread topic), my bet is its figures would drop below what the Sigma 180 APO is by itself.
And it doesn't have the reach, the IS, the AF, or the weather sealing either.
Jack
-
LOL. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that you can find proof for whatever you want there. About the best we can do is say what works best for the particular work we do. Sigma is doing better recently with their lenses. That's for sure. I have their 24mm ART lens, and I like it pretty good. Of course, after I receive my Otus 28mm, I probably will sell it. I have, relatively speaking, a lot of lenses and I use them. There are all kinds of ways of testing lenses, but the one I like best is me testing a lens on the work I do. For that work, I find the Otus Series at the top of the list. I find that I can do something with almost any lens you hand me, but left to my own devices, which mostly I am, I end up using the ones I mentioned, the Otus lenses and an array of industrial and enlarger lenses. And that is just the lens. How about composition, and taste. Hmmm.
Right now I am exploring what I call "Painterly" lenses, and a genre that over on NikonGear.com has been called "Lens Painting" or "Painting with Lenses." We are looking at the old Biotars, Zenits, Helios, Trioplans, and things like that, none of which are APO.
-
In my work, the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar is the single best all-round macro lens IMO, UNTIL the advent of the Zeiss Otus-type APO, lenses, which are not macro or close-up lenses, but they are so good that I make them work that way, as much as possible.
As my original, leading thread post said ... back in the beginning ... I am sure this is true.
You wrote a wonderful article, extolling its virtues. Same with the Otus. (Again, for studio photography and ideal/static conditions).
However, is the Voigtlander 125mm (or Otus) "the best" macro tool to track a flighty Pepsis wasp on the ground (moving/darting-in, flying-off again), with the ability to take advantage of AI servo mode? Does it have a focus-limiter switch? Is it as flexible a tool for the ever-changing realities (and sometimes very fleeting opportunities) of hiking in the woods?
Mmm, not so much I think ...
Which is why I created my own blog post (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13), ranking macro lenses in terms of being well-rounded, versatile tools for hiking/nature photography. Which I still believe is quite a bit different from the perspective you wrote from (extreme, quality optics only ... for static, very well-controlled circumstances).
Realizing that we all have different styles/interests, I placed a table of factual statistics (resolution/bokeh ... reach, price, weight ... working distance, etc.) so that each reader would think and apply the statistics to best suit their own unique needs.
For example, if a person wants to do 1-5x:1 truly close macros, none of these lenses are "the best," the MPE-65mm is, etc.
Thanks again for all the wonderful information.
-
About the best we can do is say what works best for the particular work we do.
And that is exactly the point of my article ... for those who actually waded through it ;D
-
I didn't choose to buy the Sigma 180, for some of the reason you mentioned. I would be surprised if that lens is comparable to the Zeiss 135mm APO. I might pick up one sometime, but not sure about that. I don't use extension on the Zeiss 135mm. It does not take it well. I use it on the Otus 55mm, the Nikon K-1 ring, which is 5.8mm.
Michael.
The Lenscore results for chromatic aberration show that the Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro is not a true apochromat. The reference lens is the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4, which is well regarded but definitely not apochromatic.
Regards,
Bill
-
Macro lenses have always been high resolution designs. Even the oldest designs are relatively good - I have given my old AIS MicroNikkor 55 f/3.5 (1:2) and a Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 (1:1, with preset aperture, for those who remember such stuff) a try and they are really rather decent aside from the bokeh (5 and 6 straight blade diaphragms - very odd), given that they are almost 50 years old relics from the manual film camera era. The latest computer-aided designs blow the older designs out of the water.
We are indeed fortunate to have such a choice. And I may get the Sigma sometime, as an insect/critter macro lens. Can you really get useful image stabilization at 1:3 to 1:2 range with the Sigma?
-
It is all well and good. Recently I have been getting more into the special character of lenses, regardless of how apochromatic they are. A good example is the CRT-Nikkor-O lens, which technically has all kinds of things wrong with it, but it has a special character that is all its own. I use that because it is an easy example that anyone can see for themselves. Some of the best APO lenses (like the Printing Nikkors) are very corrected, but like some cooking, they don't have much spice in them. I don't want to insult these fine lenses (of which I have three), but they are a little "clinical." They do not have a wild hair up their butt.
Now the El Nikkor 105mm APO is very well corrected, but it has a certain kind of draw or character to it that is unmistakable, and delightful. And we could go right on down the line, lens by lens. Your favorites, and my own, may differ. These years I am no longer pursuing critters. I got tired of that and also am getting older. And what I call (to myself) "Gotcha!" photography, sneaking up on a bug is not so interesting to me as it once was. For that kind of close work, I would use a lens with auto-focus, like the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR, for capturing honeybees in flight.
I am now building a technical camera based on the Rollei X-Act 2 Bellows systems, because I want to explore "swing." I have several tilt and shift cameras, but none of them "swing." The lenses for that rig will be enlarger-like lenses, a world I am learning about.
What I would like to see in a thread like this, one day, where people like ourselves show off the special character of a particular lens, so the rest of us can see and appreciate it. It can be done, but we really have to know a lens to do that.
-
Macro lenses have always been high resolution designs. Even the oldest designs are relatively good - I have given my old AIS MicroNikkor 55 f/3.5 (1:2) and a Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 (1:1, with preset aperture, for those who remember such stuff) a try and they are really rather decent aside from the bokeh (5 and 6 straight blade diaphragms - very odd), given that they are almost 50 years old relics from the manual film camera era. The latest computer-aided designs blow the older designs out of the water.
We are indeed fortunate to have such a choice. And I may get the Sigma sometime, as an insect/critter macro lens. Can you really get useful image stabilization at 1:3 to 1:2 range with the Sigma?
Nancy,
I always enjoy reading your posts. I like the Sigma 180 very much, but I don't think you would enjoy taking it on a backpacking expedition.
If you consider getting it, I would suggest that you try it out first.
Sincerely,
Bill (fellow pathologist, retired)
-
Michael.
The Lenscore results for chromatic aberration show that the Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro is not a true apochromat. The reference lens is the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4, which is well regarded but definitely not apochromatic.
Regards,
Bill
As there is no solid, universally-accepted definition of an APO lens, how can any lens "definitely" be called APO? :o
It seems the general rule is they have "better correction of chromatic and spherical aberration," but this begs the question, how do we define "better?"
For example, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM blows the Zeiss 135 "APO" out of the water here:
- LaCA:
1. Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM - 1412
2. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1179
- LoCA:
1. Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM - 1766
2. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1389
But the Canon is not an APO, but the Zeiss is :-\
In the end, I agree with Michael.
It's not just all about the specs, it's about the sum total of the strengths/weaknesses of the lens ... and stacking them in favor of your style of photography.
For example, the absolute resolution of the finest lens is a meaningless term if you hand hold and have to MF quickly.
("Above average" resolution can bring a sharper image with impeccable technique, remote switch, etc.)
Having "a higher bokeh" rating is meaningless, if you can't get close enough to nail the shot, and angle the camera to isolate the best background point. Etc.
With that said, the reason why I rated the Sigma 180 the best wildlife macro lens was 1) for my style of photography, and 2) because for nature photography it is the only macro lens with no weaknesses (other than weight).
It ranks at, above, or very near the "impeccable" 1000 mark in just about everything.
And it has nothing missing, no modern convenience left out.
Jack
-
And it has nothing missing, no modern convenience left out.
What is the focus throw of the lens?
-
What is the focus throw of the lens?
270°
All of this is on the chart in the blog post: it's the maximum any macro lens (with AF) has.
The Canon 100L only has 180° ... nice for AF exclusively, but horrible for MF.
270° of focus-turning, from 0-to-infinity is an ideal compromise between having good control of the manual focus, when you want to be precise, and yet allowing for Auto-Focus to take over when you really need to get the shot fast.
-
On the Sigma 180 Macro, there are two versions, right? What is the difference between the two. As for the lens itself, is the old one as good as the newer one?
-
As there is no solid, universally-accepted definition of an APO lens, how can any lens "definitely" be called APO? :o
It seems the general rule is they have "better correction of chromatic and spherical aberration," but this begs the question, how do we define "better?"
For example, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM blows the Zeiss 135 "APO" out of the water here:
- LaCA:
1. Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM - 1412
2. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1179
- LoCA:
1. Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM - 1766
2. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2.0/135 - 1389
But the Canon is not an APO, but the Zeiss is :-\
In the end, I agree with Michael.
It's not just all about the specs, it's about the sum total of the strengths/weaknesses of the lens ... and stacking them in favor of your style of photography.
The term apochromatic is not strictly defined as discussed here (http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/PageMill_Resources/sphero-chromatism.htm) (article dealing mainly with telescope lenses). A starting point is Abbe's original defintion:
Abbe's definition of apochromatism was the following. Apochromat: an
objective corrected parfocally for three widely spaced wavelengths and
corrected for spherical aberration and coma for two widely separated
wavelengths.
In retrospect, I don't we can use the LoCA and LatCA values from LensScore to judge if a lens is apochromatic. They do not state how many wavelengths they have measured and the CA values do not take spherical aberration into account.
The original apochromats were microscopic objectives made by Carl Zeiss and these used fluorite (a very low dispersion medium) and Abbe worked for Zeiss. Many current camera lenses use fluorite or extra low dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration and spherical elements reduce spherical aberration. The Canon lens that you cite uses ultra low dispersion glass as disclosed here (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do). Many current lens makers appear to use the term apochromatic for marketing purposes, knowing that they can get away with it due to the lack of a uniform definition of apochromatic.
I think Zeiss uses the term apochromatic in the more strict sense--after all they invented the term. Among the leading optical companies Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss and Leitz (the microscope division of Leitz is now separate from the camera division) make microscope lenses in three main quality designations: achromatic, fluorite (semi-apochromatic) and apochromatic and these categories are well accepted, and the apochromats are highly prized for critical work. Apo is not used for marketing and an apochromatic designation for a microscope lens indicates the highest correction. With Zeiss photographic lenses, an apo designation is also meaningful.
I agree with you and Michael that there are trade-offs among the desirable properties of the ideal lens, and one should choose the lens most suitable for the intended purpose.
Regards,
Bill
-
On the Sigma 180 Macro, there are two versions, right? What is the difference between the two. As for the lens itself, is the old one as good as the newer one?
There is an elder Sigma 150 mm which is a good, but not super lens.
It's the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO which is getting across-the-board reviews as the superb lens.
-
There are a couple of ways to get something close to certainty with APO lenses. One is their function. Lenses like Printing Nikkors, which were used to scan 35mm (and other) color film to make transfers, had to be perfect. The lenses cost about $12K each. Same with some other industrial lenses. Look to their function and know that there was little room to skimp in that. Where you run into trouble is with some well-known manufacturer makes a lens for general use and dubs it “APO.”
Best of all, use a lens. I learned about APO not by reading about them or measuring anything, but (of all things) looking through them and examining their photo results. I had been pursuing “sharpness,” and being upset that lenses like the 50mm and 100mm Zeiss Makro-Planars, which I expected to be terrific, were sharp, but their correction left something to be desired that even I could see the difference.
Then, with the Voiglander 125mm APO, I could see such a vast difference. That is how I have learned. And when I first posted that the answer to sharpness in a lens had to involve how well-corrected they were, but I was Pooh-poohed for a year or two, until others came around, like Lloyd Chambers. But I have also learned that (for me) lenses like the $5K Coastal Optics 60mm were made for forensics and in fact were flat and great for copy work, but too clinical for me.
So, the APO question goes circle and comes back to examining whether there are some “flaws” that exist in an APO lens that give it a certain character. When, the Otus lenses came along, the sheer quality of the lenses amounted to character all by itself. I am still sorting that out now, to decide whether that purity also lacks character…again…IMO and for my work.
-
(Taken from My Blog Post)
Supporting Reviews:
- LensTip Review (http://www.lenstip.com/355.4-Lens_review-Sigma_180_mm_f_2.8_APO_Macro_EX_DG_OS_HSM__Image_resolution.html): "The Sigma performance is simply beyond reproach. Already at the maximum relative aperture you get a very high MTF50 value, reaching 41 lpmm. On stopping down the aperture to f/4.0 the results increase to an almost record breaking level of 45 lpmm ... I haven’t tested such a sharp full frame instrument for a long time – let this sentence substitute a summary here! ... The Sigma 180 mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM is a sensational lens, practically faultless ...there are so many arguments in (the Sigma's) favour that it would make me resign from other brand name lenses."
~
- Gorm Teper Review (http://gormteper.net/reviews/sigma-180mm-f2-8-os-macro): "All in all, this is one of the rare third party lenses which not only keeps up with the professional offerings from Canon and Nikon, but actually outclasses comparable lenses. The Sigma 180mm offers more features, as good or better optics, and offers better value, with relatively few draw backs."
~
- P.C. Magazine Review (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420143,00.asp): "If you're in the market for a macro lens and want one with a longer focal length, you should give strong consideration to the Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM. It's extremely sharp, is optically stabilized, and the focus limiter function allows it to focus quickly enough to double as a standard telephoto optic. We like it better than the Canon EF 180mm Macro f/3.5L USM, which is priced in the same ballpark but lacks image stabilization ... our Editors' Choice award is for exemplary products and, even though the (Sigma) is a bit on the pricey side, we feel the extra sharpness it delivers is worth the cost."
~
- What Digital Camera.com (http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/reviews/lenses/sigma-apo-macro-180mm-f2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm/2): "In summary, Sigma’s 180mm f/2.8 lens is a costly choice for everyday use but a bargain for macro-photography. But there is more to any lens than its price-tag alone and Sigma has produced here a lens of exquisite quality that is not only feature-packed but also capable of yielding both impeccable image quality and beautiful pictures. This is not merely one of the best lenses to have been tested in WDC’s reviews, it could even be THE best lens tested so far."
Neither Photozone, Digital Picture, nor DxO have reviewed it yet.
Those who have, have been pretty verbose in singing its praise ...
Jack
-
Links fixed.
-
We are all different. What I "like" is a lens that is sharp wide open, and fast too. Since I often stack focus, a wide-angle, fast lens that is sharp wide open allows me to paint focus where I want it and allow the rest to be in bokeh. As for reviews, I have never benefited that much from them. I just buy the lens, try it, and send it back. I have sent all kinds of mirrorless cameras back so far, etc.
I trust certain lensmen like Lloyd Chambers, Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, and others. Anyway, that's how I do it.
The Sigma 180mm Macro looks good, probably not as good wide open as I would like. I may pick up a copy for live-action work with critters. Right now I am testing out a half dozen or more lenses. I like the lens folks here, but many are on NikonGear, which has been revived, so I get some reviews there.
-
The term apochromatic is not strictly defined as discussed here (http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/PageMill_Resources/sphero-chromatism.htm) (article dealing mainly with telescope lenses). A starting point is Abbe's original defintion:
Abbe's definition of apochromatism was the following. Apochromat: an
objective corrected parfocally for three widely spaced wavelengths and
corrected for spherical aberration and coma for two widely separated
wavelengths.
In retrospect, I don't we can use the LoCA and LatCA values from LensScore to judge if a lens is apochromatic. They do not state how many wavelengths they have measured and the CA values do not take spherical aberration into account.
The original apochromats were microscopic objectives made by Carl Zeiss and these used fluorite (a very low dispersion medium) and Abbe worked for Zeiss. Many current camera lenses use fluorite or extra low dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration and spherical elements reduce spherical aberration. The Canon lens that you cite uses ultra low dispersion glass as disclosed here (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do). Many current lens makers appear to use the term apochromatic for marketing purposes, knowing that they can get away with it due to the lack of a uniform definition of apochromatic.
I think Zeiss uses the term apochromatic in the more strict sense--after all they invented the term. Among the leading optical companies Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss and Leitz (the microscope division of Leitz is now separate from the camera division) make microscope lenses in three main quality designations: achromatic, fluorite (semi-apochromatic) and apochromatic and these categories are well accepted, and the apochromats are highly prized for critical work. Apo is not used for marketing and an apochromatic designation for a microscope lens indicates the highest correction. With Zeiss photographic lenses, an apo designation is also meaningful.
I agree with you and Michael that there are trade-offs among the desirable properties of the ideal lens, and one should choose the lens most suitable for the intended purpose.
Regards,
Bill
Thank you for taking the time to clarify.
-
Getting slightly off topic but I feel for safety's sake this needs emphasis:
Not all snakes are the same.
Vipers (things like rattlesnakes and adders) can often be approached and photographed as John Koerner describes, however Elapids (Cobras, Mambas, all Australian venomous snakes, sea snakes) are generally much larger (longer, not wider) snakes that also move much faster and will not, as a rule, just lie there and pose.
Generally the only way to shoot these types of snakes is to be prepared to move quickly yourself, and to a point, head the snake off. This poses a degree of risk as it is likely that the snake will perceive your actions as a potential threat.
The general rule is that a snake can strike a distance about a third of its length. Some elapids will do about half their body length. Consider a 10-14 foot Mamba that can do that as well as move very quickly over the ground caution is well justified.
(The Black Mamba, in fact, is now widely regarded as the most dangerous snake on the planet. This is a combination of size(14 foot full grown), fang length (50 mm), disposition (nervous and quick to take offence), and finally venom potency and venom volume (most metrics put the venom potency at about 13th most potent however the potential volume of envenomation and the small likelihood of a dry bite render that distinction moot.))
The bottom line is to know your animals before trying to photograph them.
I grew up on a farm in Africa and various species of Elapids and Vipers were commonly encountered.
I now live in Australia where the most venomous snakes (all Elapids) in the world reside and a walk in the bush around where I live I commonly encounter Taipans, Brown snakes, and Red-bellied Blacks.
I currently only have a halfway worthwhile image of a single Australian venomous snake despite usually having a camera with me when I come across these snakes.
I do not fear these snakes, but I do have a healthy respect for them, and given the characteristics of these snakes already outlined and the nature of the bush where I find them, not to mention that I do not move as quickly as I did when I was twenty, most times the risks of trying to shoot images far outweighs the benefits (getting the shot).
Linking to the thread, in my part of the world I would recommend using macro lenses with longer focal lengths (180 mm would be ideal) when trying to photograph Australian or Old World Elapids.
Tony Jay
-
We are all different. What I "like" is a lens that is sharp wide open, and fast too. Since I often stack focus, a wide-angle, fast lens that is sharp wide open allows me to paint focus where I want it and allow the rest to be in bokeh. As for reviews, I have never benefited that much from them. I just buy the lens, try it, and send it back. I have sent all kinds of mirrorless cameras back so far, etc.
I trust certain lensmen like Lloyd Chambers, Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, and others. Anyway, that's how I do it.
The Sigma 180mm Macro looks good, probably not as good wide open as I would like.
Of the reviews I posted, I encourage you to read LensTip and Gorm Teper's
Regarding your concern RE; image quality wide-open, LensTip says, "Already at the maximum relative aperture you get a very high MTF50 value, reaching 41 lpmm. On stopping down the aperture to f/4.0 the results increase to an almost record breaking level of 45 lpmm."
Gorm Teper provides some excellent imagery taken with the lens.
Regarding Lloyd Chambers, he compared it to the Leica (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130330_1-Sigma180-vs-Leica180-mosaic.html). (I don't subscribe, so I don't know what he says.
Jack
-
Getting slightly off topic but I feel for safety's sake this needs emphasis:
Not all snakes are the same.
Vipers (things like rattlesnakes and adders) can often be approached and photographed as John Koerner describes, however Elapids (Cobras, Mambas, all Australian venomous snakes, sea snakes) are generally much larger (longer, not wider) snakes that also move much faster and will not, as a rule, just lie there and pose.
Generally the only way to shoot these types of snakes is to be prepared to move quickly yourself, and to a point, head the snake off. This poses a degree of risk as it is likely that the snake will perceive your actions as a potential threat.
The general rule is that a snake can strike a distance about a third of its length. Some elapids will do about half their body length. Consider a 10-14 foot Mamba that can do that as well as move very quickly over the ground caution is well justified.
(The Black Mamba, in fact, is now widely regarded as the most dangerous snake on the planet. This is a combination of size(14 foot full grown), fang length (50 mm), disposition (nervous and quick to take offence), and finally venom potency and venom volume (most metrics put the venom potency at about 13th most potent however the potential volume of envenomation and the small likelihood of a dry bite render that distinction moot.))
The bottom line is to know your animals before trying to photograph them.
I grew up on a farm in Africa and various species of Elapids and Vipers were commonly encountered.
I now live in Australia where the most venomous snakes (all Elapids) in the world reside and a walk in the bush around where I live I commonly encounter Taipans, Brown snakes, and Red-bellied Blacks.
I currently only have a halfway worthwhile image of a single Australian venomous snake despite usually having a camera with me when I come across these snakes.
I do not fear these snakes, but I do have a healthy respect for them, and given the characteristics of these snakes already outlined and the nature of the bush where I find them, not to mention that I do not move as quickly as I did when I was twenty, most times the risks of trying to shoot images far outweighs the benefits (getting the shot).
Linking to the thread, in my part of the world I would recommend using macro lenses with longer focal lengths (180 mm would be ideal) when trying to photograph Australian or Old World Elapids.
Tony Jay
Point well taken, Tony.
I have been finding and handling rattlesnakes since I was 12 years old.
No American snake "scares me" (except the ones I don't see).
I know exactly how to approach, how close to approach, etc.
The pygmy rattler I was 18" away from was itself 18" long ... I was in zero danger.
Second, they're a "non-lethal" snake anyway.
Would I get 18" away from a 12' black mamba?! :o
HELL NO!!! ;D
-
Indeed, that is an excursion....
As a trained herpetologist, there were no mambas or cobras. I used to collect really large diamondbacks in south Texas, some about six feet long, with a girth as big as a cantaloupe. My specialty, however, was salamanders.
-
There is an elder Sigma 150 mm which is a good, but not super lens.
It's the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO which is getting across-the-board reviews as the superb lens.
There's also an older Sigma 180 f/3.5 Macro. It's good but not in the same league as the newer 180 2.8.
-
Hi,
I subscribe…
He did compare the Sigma 180/2.8 APO Macro with the Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO Lanthar and the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II.
He gives a mixed picture. Leica is sharpest at full aperture but is the lest well corrected for chromatic aberrations in his comparison. Now, to put things in perspective, all lenses are very good. This is at close up distance. At long distance the Leica dominates.
All lenses show focus shift when stopping down.
Best regards
Erik
Of the reviews I posted, I encourage you to read LensTip and Gorm Teper's
Regarding your concern RE; image quality wide-open, LensTip says, "Already at the maximum relative aperture you get a very high MTF50 value, reaching 41 lpmm. On stopping down the aperture to f/4.0 the results increase to an almost record breaking level of 45 lpmm."
Gorm Teper provides some excellent imagery taken with the lens.
Regarding Lloyd Chambers, he compared it to the Leica (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130330_1-Sigma180-vs-Leica180-mosaic.html). (I don't subscribe, so I don't know what he says.
Jack
-
Hi,
I subscribe…
He did compare the Sigma 180/2.8 APO Macro with the Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO Lanthar and the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II.
He gives a mixed picture. Leica is sharpest at full aperture but is the lest well corrected for chromatic aberrations in his comparison. Now, to put things in perspective, all lenses are very good. This is at close up distance. At long distance the Leica dominates.
All lenses show focus shift when stopping down.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, but to my mind those are strange bedfellows. Most of us with Nikon know the Nikon 70-200s, a good lens but not for macro. The Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO is a lens that Chambers only recently became fond of. I have been asking him to look at the Voigtlander 125 for years, and even offered to send him one, but he felt it was too much of a specialty lens. Not any real interest on his part, although the 125mm is a superior lens. The Voigtlander 180mm APO (which I also have) is a lens that has a minimum distance of almost 4 feet; not much on close-up. The Elmarit-R Leicas are good lenses. I have the 100mm Macro (with close-up attachment) and it is very nice, but hard to use on a Nikon because you have to open up the aperture to see to focus and then stop down, not much fun.
When I get some extra money I will have to pick up the Sigma 180mm macro, but my guess is it is not that well corrected, not sharp wide open, and, of course, big and heavy. I wish Zeiss would make an Otus copy of the Voigtlander 125mm. They used to be made in the same building. And I also would like to see an Otus 15mm Full-frame fisheye lens.
Here is a shot taken with the Nikon D800E and the Voigtlander 125mm APO.
-
Hi,
I subscribe…
He did compare the Sigma 180/2.8 APO Macro with the Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO Lanthar and the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II.
A rather bizarre comparison :o
I guess he compares them as telephoto lenses?
At macro distances (1:1) the Leica can't even compete.
The very fact he considers the Leica 180 "the finest short telephoto" indicates he expected good things from the Sigma.
He gives a mixed picture. Leica is sharpest at full aperture but is the lest well corrected for chromatic aberrations in his comparison. Now, to put things in perspective, all lenses are very good. This is at close up distance. At long distance the Leica dominates.
Well, this is as it should be: the Sigma should be better at close-ups; the Leica at long distances.
All lenses show focus shift when stopping down.
Best regards
Erik
Proving nothing is perfect :)
Thanks for your comments,
Jack
-
There's also an older Sigma 180 f/3.5 Macro. It's good but not in the same league as the newer 180 2.8.
True.
I neglected to add the Tamron 180.
I intentionally left out the Sigma 150, and won't bother with the elder Sigma 180 either, but I should probably add the Tamron 180.
Thanks for the correction.
-
IMO, when we make a case for a particular lens, it usually comes down to our particular working style. Therefore I feel it is difficult to make a general statement, because my list of features would be slightly different, not better, but better for me. If we look at the lens scores from Lenscore.org, comparing all lenses, we find the Zeiss Otus 85mm at the #1 position, the Zeiss Otus 55mm at #4 position, the Zeiss 135mm at 19th , and the Sigma 180-Macro at 38th… when it comes to resolving power. I think that John’s caveat is that he is talking about 1:1 macro lenses, not anything less than that. That kind of exclusion is not helpful to me. I do some macro work, but find I like more context, thus close-up, less that 1:1 is what I do most of.
Since I respect John’s work, he does flag my attention to give the Sigma 180 macro another look. And I know how it feels to really be enthusiastic about a lens. I felt the same way about the Voigtlander 125mm f.2.5 APO-Lanthar for many years, until the new Zeiss Otus-type lenses came along, at which point I found out I am not loyal to any brand, but only to performance. I then bent over backward to attempt to use the Otus-like Zeiss for close-up. I include a photo I posted years ago that expresses my opinion from back then. LOL
So, I will look to pick up a Sigma 180mm macro, although I don’t believe it is that sharp, doubt that it is corrected as well as I like (the Zeiss Otus series), and is heavy. I don’t care about the heaviness, but I do about the other points, because I shoot wide-open with fast lenses.... and I paint or stack focus.
Anyway, thanks John for laying it all out for us. You got my attention. I might use it instead of the Micro Nikkor 105mm VR macro for shooting live critters, but I doubt I would use it for much else. Maybe I will.
-
IMO, when we make a case for a particular lens, it usually comes down to our particular working style. Therefore I feel it is difficult to make a general statement, because my list of features would be slightly different, not better, but better for me. If we look at the lens scores from Lenscore.org, comparing all lenses, we find the Zeiss Otus 85mm at the #1 position, the Zeiss Otus 55mm at #4 position, the Zeiss 135mm at 19th , and the Sigma 180-Macro at 38th… when it comes to resolving power. I think that John’s caveat is that he is talking about 1:1 macro lenses, not anything less than that. That kind of exclusion is not helpful to me. I do some macro work, but find I like more context, thus close-up, less that 1:1 is what I do most of.
Yes, Michael, I agree: we are enthusiastic about what helps our particular working style.
As mentioned in the beginning, I really enjoyed your article on the Voigtlander, but felt it was better-suited to studio-type work.
Out on a nature hike, as a macro enthusiast, I wanted more options, thus I had two caveats for my rating system: 1) 1:1 true macro lens; 2) overall versatility.
I included only modern, commercially-available lenses in the discussion.
Since I respect John’s work, he does flag my attention to give the Sigma 180 macro another look. And I know how it feels to really be enthusiastic about a lens. I felt the same way about the Voigtlander 125mm f.2.5 APO-Lanthar for many years, until the new Zeiss Otus-type lenses came along, at which point I found out I am not loyal to any brand, but only to performance. I then bent over backward to attempt to use the Otus-like Zeiss for close-up. I include a photo I posted years ago that expresses my opinion from back then. LOL
Thank you. And I have a Voigtlander 125mm f.2.5 under "watch" at Ebay as we speak :)
I do stack/studio-type work sometimes too (usually with some spider that is impossible to photograph "naturally"), and I believe everything you said about this piece might bring me better results, esp the 680° of focus throw for ultra-precise increments. Am also considering a Stack Shot (https://www.cognisys-inc.com/products/stackshot/stackshot.php) which automates the process.
I also agree about not being loyal to any brand. I scrapped 3 out of 4 Canon lenses for the Sigma: it is simply better at everything. (I did keep the MPE 65 mm however ...)
I have also been patiently waiting for Canon to upgrade the 7D ... and they failed to do so adequately IMO ... and with Nikon coming out with the D500, someone has finally come out with the "perfect" APS-C camera (literally, with everything I want), and so I will be the growing list of Nikon users by spring.
So, I will look to pick up a Sigma 180mm macro, although I don’t believe it is that sharp, doubt that it is corrected as well as I like (the Zeiss Otus series), and is heavy. I don’t care about the heaviness, but I do about the other points, because I shoot wide-open with fast lenses.... and I paint or stack focus.
I would be very interested in reading your opinion on the subject, especially with the incredible experience you have with virtually every macro lens that's been put out. No lens is perfect, and we select based on the strengths that are perfect for us; but I am sure you will find it superior for its intended purpose.
Anyway, thanks John for laying it all out for us. You got my attention. I might use it instead of the Micro Nikkor 105mm VR macro for shooting live critters, but I doubt I would use it for much else. Maybe I will.
You're welcome, and a big thank you in return for the incredible amount of information you've put out there for us all to learn from as well.
I bookmarked your article here, months ago, and I have definitely bookmarked your online resources as well.
Cheers.
-
John. Thanks for the notes. The only thing I have say is that the CV-125 (Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO) lens is perfect for outdoor and for my work outdoors. It is fast, 1:1, very sharp, well-corrected, and so on. It is a manual-focus lens, but unless I am shooting flying insects, or whatever, I never use auto-focus.
I have used the CV-125 for many years outdoors with great results. So it would be helpful, when you make a statement like: "I really enjoyed your article on the Voigtlander, but felt it was better-suited to studio-type work," if you actually had used the CV-125 lens outdoors, in which case you would probably not make that statement, unless (of course) you have this fixed set of parameters for what you consider a macro lens, in which case I would urge you to point it out. If the Zeiss Otus-style lenses were not available, my opinion is that the CV-125 is by far the best all-purpose macro lens on the planet... at least that I have seen, and I have seen a bunch.
But just like you stipulate (if you do) the need for auto-focus, so I stipulate (to myself) that I need a very well-corrected lens for my work. As I have mentioned in previous posts that the wonderful Zeiss Makro-Planar macro lenses (100mm, 500mm) are quite sharp, but not well corrected, so i can't use them. But for many, many people they are the cat's meow, as they say.
Here is one of hundreds of thousands of outdoor shots I have made with the CV-125.
-
John. Thanks for the notes. The only thing I have say is that the CV-125 (Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm APO) lens is perfect for outdoor and for my work outdoors. It is fast, 1:1, very sharp, well-corrected, and so on. It is a manual-focus lens, but unless I am shooting flying insects, or whatever, I never use auto-focus.
I almost never auto-focus either. I also use a tripod and almost never hand-hold.
However, there are times where I have no choice but to do both.
When doing so (hand-holding without a tripod), I prefer to have the availability of these key features (IS/AF), if needed, than to miss a shot because I don't have these features at all.
I have used the CV-125 for many years outdoors with great results. So it would be helpful, when you make a statement like: "I really enjoyed your article on the Voigtlander, but felt it was better-suited to studio-type work," if you actually had used the CV-125 lens outdoors, in which case you would probably not make that statement, unless (of course) you have this fixed set of parameters for what you consider a macro lens, in which case I would urge you to point it out. If the Zeiss Otus-style lenses were not available, my opinion is that the CV-125 is by far the best all-purpose macro lens on the planet... at least that I have seen, and I have seen a bunch.
I make the statement because I have simply failed to get shots (trying to MF) that I was able to get using AF. (Typically, these are butterflies on "high alert" ... flitting from flower-to-flower. They land, they sip, they fly off. In cases like this, I have little time to precision focus. I try my best to compose the shot, hit AF, fire. If I tried also to really zero-in on the focus, the butterfly will be gone before I get there.)
If it is a lazy butterfly, and just sits there with its wings open, then I can take my time, use Live View, etc. However, many species simply will not allow you that kind of time. Therefore, if I am hiking and see such a creature, I like the ability to switch to AF/IS, than to "wish I had it" for that situation ...
But just like you stipulate (if you do) the need for auto-focus, so I stipulate (to myself) that I need a very well-corrected lens for my work. As I have mentioned in previous posts that the wonderful Zeiss Makro-Planar macro lenses (100mm, 500mm) are quite sharp, but not well corrected, so i can't use them. But for many, many people they are the cat's meow, as they say.
I mention a similar passage in my article (wonderful, but no 1:1, no AF, no MF) ...
I am willing to forgo a bit of resolution, etc. (albeit not too much) ... and have a much wider list of options ... than to have an edge in some categories (but lose other options altogether).
Versatility is what I am after, without losing any appreciable trait at all.
Here is one of hundreds of thousands of outdoor shots I have made with the CV-125.
Very nice!
Here is a shot I got of a Zebra Swallowtail in Florida ... thanks to having AF (albeit slower than the Sigma) on the old Canon 180mm.
It was still fast enough to let me get this (and a couple other) shots, before it flew off altogether.
While the Voigtlander I am sure is a vastly-superior piece of glass to the Canon 180, had I been forced to crank on a 680° manual-focus ring to get the shot, I doubt I could have got a shot at all.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001015_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/299/1015/medium)
Jack
-
While the Voigtlander I am sure is a vastly-superior piece of glass to the Canon 180, had I been forced to crank on a 680° manual-focus ring to get the shot, I doubt I could have got a shot at all.
Jack
Of course, you know best with your own work, but just because we can't do something does not mean that no one can, right? You point out in your quote that you could not do it. But others certainly can.
Just look at the incredible hand-held manual-focus work of LordV over on the Fred Miranda Macro Forum.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807056
Anyway, nice article...good discussion. Now to go and shoot some photos in my indoor studio, in the midst of a raging snowstorm.
-
Of course, you know best with your own work, but just because we can't do something does not mean that no one can, right? You point out in your quote that you could not do it. But others certainly can.
Again, it depends on the subject.
I can hand-hold and MF on certain subjects ... while others do not allow for it.
ust look at the incredible hand-held manual-focus work of LordV over on the Fred Miranda Macro Forum.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807056
That is the Photography-on-the-Net Forum :P
I agree, Lord V does some wonderful work.
However, again, look at his subjects.
He baits bees and takes intimate shots of immobile flowers; therefore (in essence) these are studio shots, not impromptu nature shots.
The flies and whatnot he's photographing are sitting motionless on leaves in his garden.
Big difference between wildlife photography and the convenience of setting up a studio/garden.
Anyway, nice article...good discussion. Now to go and shoot some photos in my indoor studio, in the midst of a raging snowstorm.
Agreed :)
Jack
-
Michael, I thank you again for your informative articles. I have found the Voigtlander 125 mm to be a perfect general-use outdoor macro lens, good for hand-held (following a moving insect) as well as tripod-based shots. For handheld shots of moving insects I move myself to focus (sway forward or back) and use fast shutter speed and burst mode. I like the long focus throw on tripod. The light weight makes it the perfect macro lens in a multi-lens hiking kit, along with one or two wide angle lenses for landscapes. It is one of my most-used, if not the most-used, lenses. The only puzzling feature is that for some reason it doesn't like my center focus point for focus confirmation - but I have 10 other perfectly good points to use (Canon 6D).
-
I am seriously considering an Olympus 60mm (equiv. to 120mm) for hand held macro work. It is light and from what I hear quite sharp. Although, I still must have the 75mm 1.8 lens, but it is not a macro.
-
Here is one of hundreds of thousands of outdoor shots I have made with the CV-125.
Michael - The green(s) are gorgeous on my monitor and I like how the background leaves turn into a semni-abstraction in the upper half of the image. Oh, and the insect is razor sharp. A fascinating creature and a beautiful shot.
Sean
-
Here is an article (http://thepictorial.com/reviews/clash-of-the-titan-macros) comparing the Voightlander 125 mm APO to the Zeiss 100 mm Makro.
If you can get passed the author's constant misuse of the word its (he repeatedly uses it's when its is correct), it's a pretty interesting article ;D
He pretty much says what Michael has said: they're both razor-sharp, they both create fine bokeh (edge to Voightlander), but the color-corrected Voightlander never produces color-fringing, while the Zeiss does so quite often.
-
I would not spend that much time on the CV125/Zeiss 100mm Maktro-Planar because IMO there is no comparison. I have both lenses, although I am going to sell the Zeiss 100mm. It is not that the Zeiss 100mm lens is a little uncorrected. It is big-time uncorrected, enough so that every time I give it one more chance I am reminded of why I have to sell it. It is well built and reasonably sharp, but that's it.
Here are some notes written elsewhere and earlier. We have been discussing this lens over on NikonGear.com.
Lens: Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar
Focal Length: 125mm
Widest Aperture: f/2.5
Narrowest Aperture: 22
Aperture Blades: 9
Filter Size: 58mm
Hood: Included, Square
Close Focus Distance: 14.96 inches (38 centimeters)
Reproduction Ratio: 1:1
Focus Throw: ~ 630º
Weight: 28 ounces (794 grams)
Pros: Very fast lens, very sharp lens, 9 blades, close focus, goes 1:1, long focus throw.
Cons: None. Perhaps a little heavy.
I could write a book about this lens, but I will spare you. Next to the new Zeiss Otus-style lenses, the CV-125 is, hands down, the best macro lens I own and I use it all the time, even though I have a shelf full of some of the best macro lenses in the world at the ready. It has no major negatives. It is very fast, very sharp, focuses close, has a long focus throw, reproduces to 1:1, has 9 blades (great bokeh) – the works. If I want to complain, it is a tad on the heavy side, but I am always happy to carry this piece of glass in the field.
The lens is very difficult to find in the Nikon format and also very expensive, with copies now going for $2500 or so. Despite all the good qualities, probably the features that set this lens apart from other fine macro lenses are the fact that it is truly apochromatic (APO) and has such exceptional bokeh (lovely out-of-focus blur in the background).
Of course, IMO, I would add that it has a “magic” quality that words can’t express and a very-long focus throw that makes macros and stacked-photos so very easy. I find it very stable when it comes to handling various types of light in the same frame, like shade with rays of sunlight. This is real workhorse and I have used mine day in and day out for years.
It focuses to 1:1 and lets you get very close in on your subjects. A feature not often mentioned about this lens is that it is also very sharp at mid-range and even at landscape distances. This is the little lens that could and it does. If you ever find one, buy it. You will never be sorry.
-
Thank you very much ... I intend to get one soon.
My only remaining question at this point is, how does it handle Extension Tubes (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGN_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html)?
Thank you again for all the info.
-
Lens: Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar
Focal Length: 125mm
Widest Aperture: f/2.5
Narrowest Aperture: 22
Aperture Blades: 9
Filter Size: 58mm
Hood: Included, Square
Close Focus Distance: 14.96 inches (38 centimeters)
Reproduction Ratio: 1:1
Focus Throw: ~ 630º
Weight: 28 ounces (794 grams)
Pros: Very fast lens, very sharp lens, 9 blades, close focus, goes 1:1, long focus throw.
Cons: None. Perhaps a little heavy.
The lens is very difficult to find in the Nikon format and also very expensive, with copies now going for $2500 or so. Despite all the good qualities, probably the features that set this lens apart from other fine macro lenses are the fact that it is truly apochromatic (APO) and has such exceptional bokeh (lovely out-of-focus blur in the background).
This is the little lens that could and it does. If you ever find one, buy it. You will never be sorry.
This lens receives rave reviews everywhere, but why did they stop making it? I understand that it was made in Japan by Cosina, who are still in business and make the Zeiss Otus line and the 135 f/2 APO.
Bill
-
Thank you very much ... I intend to get one soon.
My only remaining question at this point is, how does it handle Extension Tubes (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGN_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html)?
Thank you again for all the info.
In my experience, extension has more to do with the length of the lens than anything else. At 125mm and going to 1:1, why would we need extension? Like all lenses I know, extension never enhances a lens, but only degrades it, if only by a small amount. In the case of the CV-125, extension does not help the lens. I tend to use extension only on mid-range lenses, like the Zeiss Otus 55mm, where I use 5.8mm extension, what is called that K-1 extension ring. Sometimes I use a little more extension like the PK-12, which is 14mm extension.
-
This lens receives rave reviews everywhere, but why did they stop making it? I understand that it was made in Japan by Cosina, who are still in business and make the Zeiss Otus line and the 135 f/2 APO.
Bill
The stopped making it as part of a deal with Zeiss NOT to make it and compete with lenses like the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar. The two lenses were at one time made in the same factory in Japan. My hope is that Zeiss will make an Otus macro lens.
-
In my experience, extension has more to do with the length of the lens than anything else. At 125mm and going to 1:1, why would we need extension? Like all lenses I know, extension never enhances a lens, but only degrades it, if only by a small amount. In the case of the CV-125, extension does not help the lens. I tend to use extension only on mid-range lenses, like the Zeiss Otus 55mm, where I use 5.8mm extension, what is called that K-1 extension ring. Sometimes I use a little more extension like the PK-12, which is 14mm extension.
I often photograph arthropods at are smaller than a grain of rice.
You simply need greater-than-1:1 magnification to fill the frame and see any detail.
I don't often go more than 2:1, so I use either the Canon MP-E 65mm or extensions on my current 180mm.
I am aware there's a degradation, but it should be smaller on a high-quality lens.
-
The stopped making it as part of a deal with Zeiss NOT to make it and compete with lenses like the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar. The two lenses were at one time made in the same factory in Japan. My hope is that Zeiss will make an Otus macro lens.
Weird why they would stop making the better lens (Voigtlander).
Despite the intriguing image quality of this lens that is consistently reported, and the fact it is better than the Zeiss (and a true 1:1), the major drawback to me is the lack of a tripod collar ring (and the fact it can't even be fitted for one), underscoring its usefulness as a studio lens more so than a wildlife lens.
To have a tripod collar for nature photography is a compositional necessity I would say at least 60% of the time.
If I hand-hold to make the adjustments, then I open the doors for the need of IS or flash. Hand-holding also minimizes the effectiveness of the extreme, precision-focusing the Voigtlander offers.
If I use a tripod + remote switch, to take advantage of mirror-lockup and the extreme focus throw of the Voigtlander lens ... even with an L-Bracket on my camera, this reduces me to a "horizontal" or "vertical" compositional choice for camera placement ... thereby losing the freedom of 360° of rotational options that a tripod collar gives me.
Often (more often than not, actually) butterflies, spiders, praying mantids, etc. are naturally positioned in a cockeyed fashion ... on a flower or leaf ... neither aligned properly for a horizontal, nor a vertical, shot.
One of the great aspects of the Sigma, for wildlife (as well as any long telephoto), is the tripod collar which allows you to make quick, precise compositional adjustments ... without taking your camera off the tripod or being forced to hand-hold.
Jack
-
Weird why they would stop making the better lens (Voigtlander).
Despite the intriguing image quality of this lens that is consistently reported, and the fact it is better than the Zeiss (and a true 1:1), the major drawback to me is the lack of a tripod collar ring (and the fact it can't even be fitted for one), underscoring its usefulness as a studio lens more so than a wildlife lens.
As mentioned, it was contractual. They wanted to remove competition as I understand it for what they must have felt was a better lens, their Makro-Planars or whatever. I have written to Zeiss, repeatedly, asking for an Otus Macro lens. Not sure where they stand now that the see the Otus lenses are marketable, but in the beginning they told me they probably would not mace an Otus macro, BECAUSE they have to justify selling 10,000 copies... and it might not.
As for the tripod-collar, that is not essential IMO, but maybe for you it is. You might try some form of gimbal setup or, as we have kind of talked this to death, perhaps just cross the CV-125 of your list. You like the Sigma macro, just use that is my suggestion.
-
I have no problems with the balance of the CV 125mm macro lens when I attach the camera (Canon 6D - used lens cost more than the new camera!) to the tripod ball head via the camera's L bracket. It isn't a heavy lens. L bracket is on the camera 100% of the time anyway.
Another greater than 1:1 option, if you don't like / want the MPE-65, is bellows and microscope-mount lens or bellows macro lens or enlarger/repro lens (all used). Enrico Savassi (microfossils) has a great site for this sort of information. Some of the coin photographers and metallurgic/materials science photographers also have useful info. I can't imagine taking a bellows in the field.
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm
-
I can't imagine taking a bellows in the field.
I do all the time. Just remember the large view cameras.
-
As mentioned, it was contractual. They wanted to remove competition as I understand it for what they must have felt was a better lens, their Makro-Planars or whatever. I have written to Zeiss, repeatedly, asking for an Otus Macro lens. Not sure where they stand now that the see the Otus lenses are marketable, but in the beginning they told me they probably would not mace an Otus macro, BECAUSE they have to justify selling 10,000 copies... and it might not.
Thanks for the info.
As for the tripod-collar, that is not essential IMO, but maybe for you it is.
Not essential, but highly-preferable.
You might try some form of gimbal setup
Gimbal heads operate off of tripod collars ... which brings us back to the deficit in the Voigtlander.
or, as we have kind of talked this to death, perhaps just cross the CV-125 of your list.
Well, I have been saving for quite awhile to upgrade my camera system.
I was patiently waiting for Canon to produce (what I considered to be) the perfect, lightweight nature photography camera, but (with the advent of the D500) Nikon beat them to it, so I am switching from Canon to Nikon.
I have just ordered the D810 (which is $1000 less than the 5DSr + extras) and have pre-ordered the D500.
With this system switch means I have to switch lenses too (selling old, buying new).
This has created a window of opportunity for some non-standard considerations also.
Because of your rave reviews of the Voigtlander 125 APO macro, and your seeming lifetime of lens experience, I have been coveting the color/clarity/bokeh enhancements that seem implicit in this choice ... and yet I want to be mindful of its limitations as well.
The tripod collar limitation is a serious one (IMO) for quick wildlife framing while using a tripod.
I thought you might have had a viable solution, but if my constant questions are frustrating you, then I won't trouble you any more.
You like the Sigma macro, just use that is my suggestion.
I love the Sigma 180 mm APO Macro.
It remains the single best, most well-rounded, multi-purpose, ZERO-limitation, wildlife-functional, macro lens I have ever used.
However, I do lots of studio stacks also (mostly on spiders too small to photograph properly in-situ), so I am still very interested in the Voigtlander 125 APO for that purpose.
Thanks for all the information you have provided on this lens.
Jack
-
I thought you might have had a viable solution, but if my constant questions are frustrating you, then I won't trouble you any more.
Not frustrated, but I have told you everything I know about it I have used the CV-125 for hundreds of thousands of photos. It is the best all-around lens I know of, short of the Zeiss Otus series.
-
I have no problems with the balance of the CV 125mm macro lens when I attach the camera (Canon 6D - used lens cost more than the new camera!) to the tripod ball head via the camera's L bracket. It isn't a heavy lens. L bracket is on the camera 100% of the time anyway.
Can you share some of the impromptu, wildlife macro photos you've taken with this setup?
I have an L-bracket too, as mentioned, but it is not even on the same planet (convenience-wise), for wildlife photography, as a tripod ring.
The very action of removing the camera, replacing it vertically, clamping, etc. means lost time + added motion ... if you have a subject that is only going to "stay still" for a very brief period of time.
For example, Michael shows a very rich-colored photograph of a fly on a leaf with the APO 125.
However, taking a photograph of a fly in your backyard is a zero-loss proposal.
(If it "flies" off, no big deal. Wait for the next one. Try again.)
However, if you've just driven several hours into another state ... and a rare butterfly suddenly lands on a flower or leaf right next to you (and is of the type which is highly-flighty and will be gone the next second) ... you don't have a bunch of time to take cameras off, set a different way, etc. You might not even want a tripod at all ... and just want to hit AF and nail SOME kind of shot before it flies away.
My point is, if you decide to use a tripod, you can position, rotate/compose, AF, nail the shot.
(If the subject stays, you can then perhaps take some time, use live view, MF, and try stacks.)
But if it's gone the next second, at least you have something.
If you're using the Voightlander, you have no AF and no tripod ring.
You have to manually crank-out 680º to focus, with no IS.
So, while the Voightlander may possess a hair more APO color correction and bokeh ... if you miss the shot completely, fiddling with camera adjustment, having to get closer, and having no AF to quickly and efficiently zero-in on the target (while it's still there) ... what difference does the slightly-better color characteristics make?
That was your moment ... the only one you had ... and it's gone now :-[
So, again, with flowers and studio shots (over which you have compositional control + all the time in the world) I can see the advantage.
I guess my point is, after a long drive to a special place, and with but a fleeting window of opportunity laid before you ... (of something you've NEVER seen before ... and quite likely will never see again) ... I'd rather have ADVANTAGES in this regard AF, IS + tripod ring (backed by very high quality lens characteristics) ... than maybe having slightly higher lens characteristics (but founded upon deficiencies that might cause me to lose the shot altogether).
This is why I continue to regard the Voightlander lens as a studio, not wildlife, lens.
Another greater than 1:1 option, if you don't like / want the MPE-65, is bellows and microscope-mount lens or bellows macro lens or enlarger/repro lens (all used). Enrico Savassi (microfossils) has a great site for this sort of information. Some of the coin photographers and metallurgic/materials science photographers also have useful info. I can't imagine taking a bellows in the field.
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm
Thank you.
This is a very valuable resource.
Bookmarked!
Jack
-
If you are shooting bugs on the fly, the CV-125mm is not what you want, although I have done it many time. Use your Sigma 180mm macro or the old reliable Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for that kind of stuff. The Sigma should do the job and you already are happy with it. Or get the old Micro-Nikkor 200m Macro and use that.
The CV-125 is way more than a “studio” lens, as any number of photographers probably would testify to. Unfortunately, the world of photography gear is not designed for just one person’s needs. I use a variety of lenses, depending on what kind of work I am doing.
I seldom shoot fast-moving insects, so the ones I have are in deep storage.
Here is an insect shot with the CV-125.
-
If you are shooting bugs on the fly, the CV-125mm is not what you want, although I have done it many time. Use your Sigma 180mm macro or the old reliable Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for that kind of stuff.
Which is exactly the point of my original post, back in the beginning :)
For these exact reasons, my blog post (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) labeled the Sigma and the Nikon 105 #1 and #2 respectively.
The Sigma should do the job and you already are happy with it. Or get the old Micro-Nikkor 200m Macro and use that.
It does do the job, superbly.
The old Micro-Nikkor is hampered by slower AF and no IS, but is superb where quick action isn't needed ... but long reach, and isolating the background, is.
The CV-125 is way more than a “studio” lens, as any number of photographers probably would testify to. Unfortunately, the world of photography gear is not designed for just one person’s needs. I use a variety of lenses, depending on what kind of work I am doing.
I agree the CV-125 "can" be used for wildlife, but it is highly-limited for the reasons already stated.
It will never be a "quick on the draw" lens, nor was it designed to be.
It is a thoughtful, "take your time" lens ...
The Sigma carries high degrees of both ...
I seldom shoot fast-moving insects, so the ones I have are in deep storage.
I don't do too many fast moving subject either ... but many "fly away quickly," after landing for a sec.
Here is an insect shot with the CV-125.
Two comments: 1) Something must have happened to the upload, as the image is shot; 2) Again, this is a common honey bee (seen often and, if missed, no worries as you'll see another in a few second/minutes).
The elements I have tried to cover was wildlife, UNcommon finds, and being prepared to capture what you can with a fully-capable macro lens (as opposed to a supremely capable lens in some respects, while utterly lacking in others).
Jack
-
Yes, for insects, AF is good and more focal length (working distance) is also good. I have handheld the CV 125 for chasing around slow-moving (hovering, sipping, walking) insects. Lens racked out to desired magnification. Fine focus achieved by moving camera back or forward, paying attention to the AF confirm (which does work). Not as convenient as AF, to be sure, but it will do. I happen to do a fair amount of plant and mushroom photography, MF on tripod is fine. And I like MF as a process - I grew up when all lenses were MF, and it's natural for me to use MF for things not involving high speed action. I'd rather take a relatively lightweight (~600 grams) lens like the CV 125 on a hike, although I have taken the Canon 180mm (1200 grams) out on hikes. Yes, I need to work out more, I am a 115 pound weakling.
Basically, different tools for different purposes. I am grateful to have good tools. I am currently missing my outdoor macro shooting - winter - not too much going on.
-
This is a very timely discussion since I just ordered a few days ago a mint copy of the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 in F mount. ;)
I intend it to relace both my Zeiss 100mm f2 and the Zeiss 135mm f2 that I both love but don't use that much (the 100mm due to its CA "problem", the 135mm due to not being macro enabled).
I expect the operation to be mostly neutral from a cost standpoint, while enabling a further simplification of my lens line-up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have enjoyed this discussion and thank the participants.
Could I ask if the Macro gurus have compared MF macro lenses at all? I am thinking of the Hasselblad 120mm II in the H or indeed the earlier V fit macro planar.
Now before we get all the apples and oranges, you can't do that, etc the end result of all this endeavor is a print, sometimes, and certainly an image on a screen both of which are format neutral to the viewer. I appreciate of course the weight discussions become very pertinent as does shooting hand held but forgetting how you get there what about the end results?
-
Hi,
I have compared my Sony 90/2.8G and my Planar 120/4CF. Actual pixel crops, 39 MP on the P45+ and 42 MP on the Sony.
Macro Planar/P45:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-CF047043_focus_crop.jpg)
Sony 90/28G FE:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-_DSC3485_focus_crop.jpg)
Bokeh crops:
Macro Planar 120/4 P45+
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-CF047043_bokeh_crop.jpg)
Sony 90/2.8G FE:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/20151225-_DSC3485_bokeh_crop.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
I have enjoyed this discussion and thank the participants.
Could I ask if the Macro gurus have compared MF macro lenses at all? I am thinking of the Hasselblad 120mm II in the H or indeed the earlier V fit macro planar.
Now before we get all the apples and oranges, you can't do that, etc the end result of all this endeavor is a print, sometimes, and certainly an image on a screen both of which are format neutral to the viewer. I appreciate of course the weight discussions become very pertinent as does shooting hand held but forgetting how you get there what about the end results?
-
I sold my MF Mamiya RZ67 and some eleven lenses in the last couple of years, including the 140mm Macro. I had a 33MP back on it, but it was way too much trouble and the lenses were not all that good compared to lenses like the Zeiss Otus series. And the user interface on the digital back was almost prehistoric. Not a good experience.
-
Yes, for insects, AF is good and more focal length (working distance) is also good. I have handheld the CV 125 for chasing around slow-moving (hovering, sipping, walking) insects. Lens racked out to desired magnification. Fine focus achieved by moving camera back or forward, paying attention to the AF confirm (which does work). Not as convenient as AF, to be sure, but it will do.
For me, it's working distance from a tripod and the ability to quickly focus via AF.
That said, I much prefer to manually-focus on a tripod.
Regardless of strength, in my view it is simply impossible to hand-hold (in natural light) and achieve the same sharpness as using a tripod + remote switch.
AF is just a safeguard to get "a" shot, but when I have a subject I know isn't going anywhere I will take my time, compose the shot, use LiveView (blown-up 10x), and either use macro rails or MF.
As mentioned earlier, when hiking about, there are times when a rare (or infrequently-seen) opportunity will present itself. When that happens, I will try to achieve focus ASAP with AF, to get "some" shot(s) within that fleeting moment of opportunity. If luck favors me, and the subject is still hanging around, then I will start tying to compose some more ideal framing, maybe even go for stack, etc.
So my definite preference is MF, tripod, remote switch ... I just don't want MF to be my only option :-\
I also believe, when quick action is needed, that AF from a tripod will be better than MF handheld every time ... with precise-focus, mirror-lockup, tripod, remote switch being best practice (if you have the luxury of time).
I happen to do a fair amount of plant and mushroom photography, MF on tripod is fine. And I like MF as a process - I grew up when all lenses were MF, and it's natural for me to use MF for things not involving high speed action. I'd rather take a relatively lightweight (~600 grams) lens like the CV 125 on a hike, although I have taken the Canon 180mm (1200 grams) out on hikes. Yes, I need to work out more, I am a 115 pound weakling.
As I put in my review (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13), if you're going to hand-hold, the Canon 180L macro should be #9 ... due to its size, weight, and no AF. Even a 180 lb man is not going to get absolute sharpness with that lens, hand-holding it, compared to using the 100L (which is light + it has IS).
The Voightlander is intriguing to me too! However, to be honest, for me it is bizarre to try to talk about "hand holding" and "best results" in the same sentence ...
To be equally-honest, for awhile I have also realized that it's difficult to speak of absolute sharpness and the Canon EOS 7D in the same sentence ;D
I was tempted to buy the 5DSr, because of its resolution; however not only is the 5DSr limited in DR, but its color range is even more limited.
That is just not something that gets me excited to spend money. (Not to mention it's $1000 more than the D810.)
I know the D810 is getting long in the tooth, but that is what has created it's very attractive price point right now, and it is definitely going to give me better resolution than my 7D. By a longshot.
Even better, the D810 produces across-the-board excellence. Maybe the Sony A7rII is a hair ahead now, but I don't care, because the Sony is also limited in a lot of ways (not unlike the Voightlander).
I will be getting my D810 Tuesday along with a Nikon-version of the Sigma 180 mm.
By the time April rolls around I will have added the D500 as well, as the eta is mid-late March/early April.
I am going to have a Sigma Sports lens at the end of that, and I am excited for the new spring/summer to begin :D
Jack
-
I have enjoyed this discussion and thank the participants.
Could I ask if the Macro gurus have compared MF macro lenses at all? I am thinking of the Hasselblad 120mm II in the H or indeed the earlier V fit macro planar.
Now before we get all the apples and oranges, you can't do that, etc the end result of all this endeavor is a print, sometimes, and certainly an image on a screen both of which are format neutral to the viewer. I appreciate of course the weight discussions become very pertinent as does shooting hand held but forgetting how you get there what about the end results?
Hi Chris;
I have no experience with Medium Format at all.
Typically, however, macro shots do not need to be blown-up in print to MF sizes, so it seems to be overkill.
I would also imagine that the gear would be more cumbersome and not very advantageous to nature photography, so might be more suitable for staged/studio photography.
But if you have reasons to make large prints, and have a lot of control over the environment, it might be worth the effort.
However, if you're hiking out in nature and are wanting to gather non-staged, in-situ, macro nature photography I would forget about MF altogether.
Jack
-
I have had almost all of the Nikon digital cameras over time. The Nikon D810 is the finest camera I have ever used, why? I love it for the the base ISO 64 and the fact that the LiveView (while not perfect) is usable for focusing. Of course, the 36 MP I am used to from the D3x and the D800E. One thing: get a LOT of batteries if you plan to use LiveView. LiveView eats them up. On my copy, I have never even used the OVF, except to see if it works. It is not even open on my camera.
-
I have had almost all of the Nikon digital cameras over time. The Nikon D810 is the finest camera I have ever used, why? I love it for the the base ISO 64 and the fact that the LiveView (while not perfect) is usable for focusing. Of course, the 36 MP I am used to from the D3x and the D800E. One thing: get a LOT of batteries if you plan to use LiveView. LiveView eats them up. On my copy, I have never even used the OVF, except to see if it works. It is not even open on my camera.
Thanks for the tips.
One of the perks with the purchasing a D810 now is you get a free extra battery and free 32 gb card.
I will spend a day out in the field, up the road in the local mountains, just to see how far 2 batteries and a 64 gb + 32 gb card gets me, and make adjustments from there.
File-size will definitely be a limiting factor, and yet a liberating factor, because it will cause me to be more discriminating ... both in what I shoot and what I keep :)
-
I prefer using a tripod too, and live view (equivalent to Nikon mirror lockup) with wired release. Of course tripod shooting is more reliably sharp, but in a pinch I can get decent shots hand-held if I can use a higher ISO and adequate shutter speed and shoot on continuous burst (usually one of the burst frames has no motion artifact at 100%). I am also shooting with the 21 MP Canon 6D, so my experience will be different from that of someone shooting with the Canon 5DSr or Sony A7R2 or Nikon D810, with higher pixel density.
I like Canon, have thought about trying the Sony A7R2. There is something off-putting about buying a camera sight unseen - to me, ergonomics and operation matter. I might rent one if I can get it with an L bracket - just to satisfy my curiosity. But really, I would benefit more by more shooting time (sometimes hard, given full time job), more natural history knowledge, more time curating and processing images, a workshop or two - my brain needs upgrading more than my sensor. ;D
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that brain is OK.
Regarding the A7rII, I own one. Yes, I like it very much, and I feel it delivers on promise.
On the other hand, I also feel it is a bit overhyped. If I was a Canon user, I would not feel an urge to switch unless I had a need of some or more features of the A7rII. I would also say that even if many Canon lenses work perfectly fine on the Sony I would expect that they work even better on a Canon. I am not that sure about those Sony lenses, with or without that Zeiss label.
To sum up, I feel the A7rII is a great camera, but so is Canon 5Ds and Nikon D810. Those two cameras are the nearest competitors I would say.
Best regards
Erik
I prefer using a tripod too, and live view (equivalent to Nikon mirror lockup) with wired release. Of course tripod shooting is more reliably sharp, but in a pinch I can get decent shots hand-held if I can use a higher ISO and adequate shutter speed and shoot on continuous burst (usually one of the burst frames has no motion artifact at 100%). I am also shooting with the 21 MP Canon 6D, so my experience will be different from that of someone shooting with the Canon 5DSr or Sony A7R2 or Nikon D810, with higher pixel density.
I like Canon, have thought about trying the Sony A7R2. There is something off-putting about buying a camera sight unseen - to me, ergonomics and operation matter. I might rent one if I can get it with an L bracket - just to satisfy my curiosity. But really, I would benefit more by more shooting time (sometimes hard, given full time job), more natural history knowledge, more time curating and processing images, a workshop or two - my brain needs upgrading more than my sensor. ;D
-
Just for the record, I have owned and returned a good number of mirrorless cameras, including the original A7r, A7S, Nikon1, etc. And I believe that still holds true for the A7rII, although it is tempting. With each mirrorless camera I bought, I tried REALLY hard to imagine it was the future, but after a while, I realized that the Nikon I had (D800E, now D810) was still my future. It actually works perfectly, whereas with the mirrorless cameras, they depended on my belief they would work, which gradually turned into disappointment. I would like a D900 with 54 MP, an EVF, a low ISO (like 64), and a few other things.
-
Hi,
I guess that if live view is mostly used an EVF system is preferable. If AF or OVF is used a DSLR type device is preferable.
Present generation of EVF has some weaknesses.
EVF cameras have short flange distance, allowing use of a wide variety of lenses, including T&S options for normal DSLR lenses.
It is sort of horses for the curses. Image quality depends on sensor and lens, with the camera playing a very minor role.
Best regards
Erik
Just for the record, I have owned and returned a good number of mirrorless cameras, including the original A7r, A7S, Nikon1, etc. And I believe that still holds true for the A7rII, although it is tempting. With each mirrorless camera I bought, I tried REALLY hard to imagine it was the future, but after a while, I realized that the Nikon I had (D800E, now D810) was still my future. It actually works perfectly, whereas with the mirrorless cameras, they depended on my belief they would work, which gradually turned into disappointment. I would like a D900 with 54 MP, an EVF, a low ISO (like 64), and a few other things.
-
I like Canon, have thought about trying the Sony A7R2. There is something off-putting about buying a camera sight unseen - to me, ergonomics and operation matter. I might rent one if I can get it with an L bracket - just to satisfy my curiosity.
I've thought about it, but the A7rII seems like more of a "static" camera than a "live" camera.
Too many adapters required, too many native lens limitations, too many ergonomic lamenesses, etc. to qualify as a nature camera IMO (or to justify a jump, when the D810 is essentially the same thing, with more features, and ZERO such limitations--and now esp. the D500).
I don't necessarily need the "absolute best" in a few areas, if it means totally sacrificing some key features in others.
I prefer to have a VERY strong contender in EVERY area ... which IMO is much more useful out in the field.
But really, I would benefit more by more shooting time (sometimes hard, given full time job), more natural history knowledge, more time curating and processing images, a workshop or two - my brain needs upgrading more than my sensor. ;D
That is a strong, strong, strong statement (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/saludos.gif)
The best nature photographers aren't the ones with the finest equipment, they're the ones out there constantly shooting.
They are the ones who are familiar with the land, the ecosystems + when/where & what time of day to capture the subjects.
Their intimate knowledge of all of these factors creates their success ("success" being defined as when preparation meets opportunity ...)
I used to live on 50 acres of remote FL wilderness. Natural beauty was all around me.
Getting great shots was as easy as walking a few paces out my front door.
By living there for a number of years, I knew when/where to go to get whatever I wanted in that area.
Now I am back in Los Angeles County and "beauty" is a bit of a drive.
I have spent the last 3 years building a nature photography database and I have populated it with (mostly) my older FL photos taken when I had a lot more time to shoot.
None of the databases I had been a member of (Flickr, Pbase, etc.) had everything I wanted, and I am the type do something about it, and make my own, rather than complain.
I am fully-prepared to populate my own site now ... designed as I wanted, and am further prepared by getting myself some significant camera/lens upgrades from what I started with.
But none of this is worth $1.50 unless I am actually out there taking photographs (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Part of my agenda is weekly micro-trips, and 1x monthly Field trips.
I have joined some local spider, reptile, and photography clubs to gain more local knowledge and to establish some local contacts.
I also plan on going on a couple of trips, and my girlfriend is from Thailand, and we will be going out there this year as well.
Since I have several Asian friends on Facebook, who are outstanding macro photographers, I am anxious to finally meet some of them, and have show me some of the local sites also.
Back to "Gear": if the 7D + Canon macros could last me from 2010 till now, then I am quite sure that the cameras/lenses I have just purchased will be more than satisfactory for the next 5-10 years.
I don't want to get too caught up with "gear," but on the other hand, I want to purchase gear that gives me ZERO regrets and allows me to do everything I want to do, and to a very capable degree.
After the gear has been got, then everything you just said applies, and makes all the difference in the world: getting out there shooting + knowledge of the ecosystem + expertise in post-processing. Well said.
Final Thought, in line with what you said:
I have seen guys with the best systems in the world, who couldn't take a single acceptable macro shot IMO.
I have seen other guys, with D200s and 40Ds, take jaw-dropping macro shots.
Jack
PS: I am wanting to create in in-house studio to do some truly-close ultra-macro photography (photomicroscopy). Here is such a set-up:
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/679_On_Bratcam_1.jpg)
Here is another:
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/679_Left_side_1.jpg)
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/679_Subject_stage_cu_1.jpg)
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/679_Optics_1.jpg)
The fact that Nikon microscope optics are primarily used (as well as Zeiss) is another reason for my conversion.
Here are some examples of the work that can be produced:
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/2693_20120811222816EditZSPMax_1.jpg)
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/2693_20120901212702EditZSPMax_1.jpg)
(http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/userpix/2693_20120910210249EditZSPMax_1.jpg)
When one keeps in mind that these images were produced 3-6 years ago, with Nikon D200s and Canon 40Ds, I am quite sure the D500 and D810 will serve me well for a very long time ...
On the subject of post-processing, Nancy, you couldn't have his the bulls-eye any more exact ... as this before/after-post image illustrates:
(http://i.imgur.com/VwEyTtT.gif)
Not everyone knows how to post-process like this!
PSS: I obtained these images from http://www.photomacrography.net, a great resource for macro shooters.
-
John: I have spent a good amount of time in southern Florida, in the Everglades. Where were you located?
-
John: I have spent a good amount of time in southern Florida, in the Everglades. Where were you located?
I was up near the panhandle actually, in Old Town (zip: 32680), from 2008-2012.
I later moved to Hollywood, FL but did not get anywhere near the volume of shots in the city as I did the country.
A lot of my photos have the GPS/Googlemap, which will show the exact location of where I was ...
Cheers,
-
Jack,
I believe that you will be pleased with the D810.
Even today, one year and a half after its availability, I am still awed by the files, especially at base ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I later moved to Hollywood, FL but did not get anywhere near the volume of shots in the city as I did the country.
From looking at your site, basically you have a field guide, and an elaborate one at that. In your guide, the accent is on the guide, not on photography. Makes sense. When I was much younger, I was a herpetologist, specializing in salamanders. Back then I too was basically doing photography as for a field guide, but mostly I was working with the University of Michigan as collector, measuring, marking, and releasing thousands of salamanders.
My first camera was a Kodak Retina IIa, working with a tripod and light meter. This was 1956. I was 14 years old. Here is a shot I took back then of some fungus, but I was already sensitive to composition, etc.
And here is a shot late last summer or an orb weaver taken with the D810 and the Zeiss Otus 55mm. Like yourself I know all about the habitats and life habits of most local critters. I have been studying nature since I was six-years old. This is more what I imagine you would like, fit for a nature guide.
-
Jack,
I believe that you will be pleased with the D810.
Even today, one year and a half after its availability, I am still awed by the files, especially at base ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
I am sure I will be delighted with it, compared to the 7D.
Same with the D500 ... which, I hope, offers better high-ISO capability.
Will definitely provide feedback 8)
-
From looking at your site, basically you have a field guide, and an elaborate one at that. In your guide, the accent is on the guide, not on photography. Makes sense. When I was much younger, I was a herpetologist, specializing in salamanders. Back then I too was basically doing photography as for a field guide, but mostly I was working with the University of Michigan as collector, measuring, marking, and releasing thousands of salamanders.
True, but not quite.
The emphasis is actually on both photography and field-guide-like science.
Remember we have both Encounter Reports (field guide) and Personal Image Galleries (your best work).
For example, I have two separate entries on The Atala Butterfly.
I have an Encounter Report (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=52) on the species, with some no-quality photos I got with a point-and-shoot ... but I also have Personal Images (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/512/1232/medium) that I took some pride in and tried to make nice with a 180mm.
Because of the difference in quality, I added the best images to my own personal gallery, as they were taken with a DSLR, and I thought they were "artistic."
By contrast, the Encounter Report is just what you say: "a field guide," and I took those photos with a P&S, just to record their location/habitat.
(My thinking is I don't want sloppy images on my personal gallery AND YET I want to document my findings too. Therefore, my best images go on my personal gallery, while my "so-so" biological-documentation images go on the Encounter Reports.)
The really cool thing is, BOTH sets of images can be hooked to The Atala's position in The Kingdom of Life (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=777806).
If the viewer clicks on Encounter images, he or she gets taken to the Encounter Report.
If the viewer clicks on the Artistic images, he or she goes to my personal gallery of "best shots."
My first camera was a Kodak Retina IIa, working with a tripod and light meter. This was 1956. I was 14 years old. Here is a shot I took back then of some fungus, but I was already sensitive to composition, etc.
My first pets were praying mantises and black widow spiders :)
By the age of 12 (when other kids were ditching school to smoke pot), I was ditching school catching rattlesnakes for Western Zoological Supply, one of the first serpentariums ever.
I was too into "catching" then to think about "photographing" ... but later, as I grew older, I began to value the animals' sanctity and grew to find far more joy in trying to "capture" them to camera in their natural environment.
And here is a shot late last summer or an orb weaver taken with the D810 and the Zeiss Otus 55mm. Like yourself I know all about the habitats and life habits of most local critters. I have been studying nature since I was six-years old. This is more what I imagine you would like, fit for a nature guide.
These would be perfect shots for the community Encounter Reports.
If you happened to get any artistic shot, that really pleased you, you could add it to your own, personal image gallery.
BOTH types of shot could be hooked to the Kingdom of Life database for that species ;D
Jack
-
I have enjoyed this discussion and thank the participants.
Could I ask if the Macro gurus have compared MF macro lenses at all? I am thinking of the Hasselblad 120mm II in the H or indeed the earlier V fit macro planar.
Now before we get all the apples and oranges, you can't do that, etc the end result of all this endeavor is a print, sometimes, and certainly an image on a screen both of which are format neutral to the viewer. I appreciate of course the weight discussions become very pertinent as does shooting hand held but forgetting how you get there what about the end results?
I use both a Nikon 105 f/2.8G Micro on a D800E and V system 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar on an IQ160 back. I am happy with both although using the old V system requires a more contemplative (i.e., slower) approach. I haven't done a back-to-back comparison but the 120mm Makro-Planar does quite well if you're inclined to this style of work. The attached image was captured using this lens at f/16 on a Flexbody with 10 degrees tilt.
-
Thank you to those who kindly replied to my MF lens query.
It looks like the route is to be "investment" in a better 35mm format lens as I am tending to more field work and, although the H & V systems are no problem indoors,as is wisely pointed out transport in the wild is another matter.
I am tending to the Sigma as a match for my D500 with the bonus of the extra reach the crop gives whilst retaining compatibility to the D3.
Thank you John for the pointer to http://www.photomacrography.net/
-
Hi,
Just a few reflections…
I have not used the Hasselblad 120 H macro, but it is said to be a very good lens. Most newer designs have floating elements that compensates for field curvatures at different focal lengths. The Hasselblad H lens does it and also the Mamiya macro. The Contax 645 120/4 APO Macro also has floating elements, it is much different from the old Planar 120/4 that I have.
That said, my experience with the Hasselblad V series Macro Planar 120/4 is a pleasant one and I intended to use it when I need tilt on my Sony A7rII.
Best regards
Erik
I have enjoyed this discussion and thank the participants.
Could I ask if the Macro gurus have compared MF macro lenses at all? I am thinking of the Hasselblad 120mm II in the H or indeed the earlier V fit macro planar.
Now before we get all the apples and oranges, you can't do that, etc the end result of all this endeavor is a print, sometimes, and certainly an image on a screen both of which are format neutral to the viewer. I appreciate of course the weight discussions become very pertinent as does shooting hand held but forgetting how you get there what about the end results?
-
Thank you to those who kindly replied to my MF lens query.
It looks like the route is to be "investment" in a better 35mm format lens as I am tending to more field work and, although the H & V systems are no problem indoors,as is wisely pointed out transport in the wild is another matter.
I am tending to the Sigma as a match for my D500 with the bonus of the extra reach the crop gives whilst retaining compatibility to the D3.
Thank you John for the pointer to http://www.photomacrography.net/
I think that is a wise choice.
As I mentioned back in the beginning, there is a major difference between shooting static subjects in a studio setting, or even shooting flowers in your garden (where you're comfortable, where you know and can control your subject) and wildlife photography (where your opportunities can be sporadic, in UNcomfortable settings, and fleeting). I suppose a picture's worth a thousand words, so I will post some photos to illustrate:
Here is a photo of me in Pumpkin Swamp, FL trying to photograph a Viceroy butterfly with an old setup I had (Giottos Tripod + 7D + Canon 180mm macro):
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/1.jpg)
Notice the working distance. I can only get so close to this thing before it takes off. The 180mm alows for this.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/2.jpg)
Here is the shot. Maybe not the best, but it was the best I could do before it took off.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/3.jpg)
Another example, same Pumpkin Swamp trip. Again, notice the working distance. I can't climb on top of this thing, I have to give it some distance.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/4.jpg)
Here is the shot. Again, maybe not the best, but it was the best I could do before it took off. (I don't have all day.)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/5.jpg)
Here is another, more recent example in 2015 in the San Gabriel Mountains of CA. This is the Sigma 180 on my 7D w/ a RRS GroundPod.
Note how, with a quick-turn of the tripod collar, I am able to re-compose vertically in an instant.
(I don't have to take my camera off, re-mount, etc., with all the wasted time/movement that comes with it ...nope.)
I just make a quick turn of the knob with my left hand, compose with the right, done. In seconds.)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/_MG_7665-1.jpg)
Here is the shot. Keep in mind this lil' butterfly is 1/20th the size of the other two, about the size of the first joint on your pinky finger.
I was able to get a lot closer, but still (comparatively) keep my distance.
My point is, what many people "call" wildlife photography actually isn't (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/idea.gif)
It's them sitting in their garden, or going to a local park, and taking (essentially) controlled photographs in a comfortable atmosphere.
Those shots I took in FL were in the middle of a light rain, incredible humidity, mosquitoes everywhere.
The light rain made the butterflies lazy, which was good, but the 100 mosquitoes for every cubic-foot of air made it almost impossible to concentrate (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
The shot in CA was taken under extreme heat, arid, with a heavy breeze blowing.
The arid heat makes the butterflies extremely alert, fast, and intolerant to movement.
And good luck taking "stacks" in the wind (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/wits.gif)
So my suggestion is really study the macro shots that people take, and you can pretty much tell whether it's wildlife photography ... or studio (garden/microscopic) photography being called "wildlife" photography (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/idea.gif)
Again, the premise of my article (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) (outlined on page 1 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107134.0) of this thread) was to distinguish between the best all-around wildlife macro lens (as opposed to a studio lens, or for people who bait bees in their garden).
My article was directed toward those macro shooters who are actually out in the wilderness, in UNcontrolled circumstances, facing random, fleeting opportunities for which they have to be prepared, at every level, and yet still want to enjoy across-the-board optic excellence.
The Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro is that lens.
It has an extremely high level of optic excellence, it is built like a military stealth weapon, and (as important) it lacks nothing:
It provides an answer for every outdoor challenge a macro shooter can face, from weather sealing, tripod collar, to reach, to AF/OS, etc.
And I hope, now that I have the Nikon D810 with the Sigma, that I will be upgrading my results all the more for this new season ...
Jack
-
In fact, I would like to point out that, on p. 44 of Mr. Erlewine's own Macro eBook (http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/e-books/Close-Up_Macro_2012.pdf), he basically admits everything I have said, without realizing it:
- "Single-Shot Live-Subject Macros with the Nikon D800E
"Not sure why I am sharing this: It is not because these are acceptable results, but rather to discuss the challenges that the new D800E offers when it comes to manual focus. I was at an event for a few days, but not one I imagined I would be using macro lenses, so I only brought one, the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar, just as an afterthought. I also brought the Nikon 800E, although I was there to shoot with the Nikon D4 and the Nikkor 24- 70mm and the 70-200mm. Anyway…
"In the early morning one day I had time for some macro shots using the D800E and the CV-125, so I took some single shot photos. It was just a little windy, so stacking on a rail would have been fruitless.
"The results were anything but encouraging, not because there is anything wrong with the D800E that I can see, but because of my own lack of technique. There was not quite enough light for very high apertures, so the DOF was shallow and it shows. It was hard to get enough of the subject in focus to feel comfortable.
"While most of the problems I ran into would be solved if I stacked focus (on a static subject), since I could create my own facsimile of DOF, taking one-off shots proved to me how critical the focus is with this new camera. It was frustrating to say the least. And, it is hard to see in the tiny LCD whether you really have the focus or not.
"I should have brought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR lens. That would have helped. Trying to focus moving subjects with the CV- 125 in only medium light was painful. However, I can say this: The camera is great and even from these relatively unfocussed shots I can see that if I do my homework, that very high-quality shots are possible in the future. But this camera will separate the men from the boys (so to speak), and there is a real learning curve here for single-shot focus on live subjects. Ouch!
"After this experience, I am not so quick to recommend this camera for everyone. It is going to be very painful for those without the 45 patience to focus this baby. Again, a VR auto-focus lens would help, and I have not tried to figure out whether my copy of the D800E has the right/left focus problems. Not sure how to do that. What is an easy test for that?
"So my takeaway is embarrassment at my own technique, and the sense that I need a lot of light for one-offs, higher apertures, and that an autofocus lens would help a lot. I would want a tripod, even for these shots and, at least for now, I have to be ready for a workout. I felt clumsy with the D800E. This camera is demanding when it comes to focus. And as wonderful as this camera is, it appears to me at the moment that for this kind of work, it is a specialty camera, not a general camera, at least in my opinion.
"Of course, I am still a little daunted by the experience, and I can only blame myself for the results. However, I am peaked to try it again soon.
"All shots with the Nikon D800E, CV-125, and an aperture perhaps at f/5.6 or lower, not enough DOF for what was needed."
In my view, Mr. Erlewine incorrectly blames the D800E, when (IMO) it was his lens choice that caused his poor results.
(I believe he was vaguely-aware of this himself, noting that the Micro-Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED would have served him better in the less-than-favorable circumstances he was faced with.)
Let me further point out that those circumstances Mr. Erlewine was facing were, literally, "a walk in the park" compared to actual wildlife photography ... climbing mountains, traversing the desert, standing in a swamp, etc.
Please understand that my point here is not to knock Mr. Erlewine's estimation of the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar. I believe every word he said about the lens.
Again, as I stated in the very beginning, in my opening post, he made a wonderful review of the lens ... but I just felt that it was important to point out as a studio lens.
Because, trust me when I tell you, if Mr. Erlewine was struggling getting good results with this lens, outside an "event" ... in the settings of a simple garden ... he would be really disappointed with his results out in a truly wild frontier. Flowers and inanimate objects are one thing, but live, wary, and easily-scared subjects out in nature are quite another.
Therefore, what I hope the reader walks away with is an understanding of the difference.
No "one" lens is perfect for every job. It is therefore up to the photographer to choose the right tool for the job.
If you're doing studio macro work, then I have 100% confidence that what Mr. Erlewine has said about the Voigtlander 125mm APO Lanthar is correct.
However, trust me when I tell you, if you're seriously going to go out macro shooting in the wilderness, you will be far better served across-the-board using the Sigma 180 APO macro, with the weather sealing, the reach, the IF, the OS, and a tripod collar ... as a foundation for its equally-excellent image quality.
Jack
-
I am not interested in getting into an argument here or in trying to respond to all of things that Jack points out that I didn’t “realize.”
I have been a confirmed naturalist since I was six years old, after I received some mentoring by a wonderful woman naturalist who was a friend of my mom. I know very well what it is like to hunt, stalk, drive great distances, etc. to try to find all kinds specimens to capture for scientific purposes, just for fun, or to photograph. I have contributed very large collections to a major museum, etc.
I myself have done pretty much the same thing as Jack is describing and for many years. I have already pointed out I believe more than once here that there are lenses (auto-focus) that are better for capturing flying insects, like damsel flies, for example. I have also made clear that where I am today with all of this is that photographically “trying” to capture insects no longer interests me. Nada.
I am very much what you would call a photographer of the “found,” whatever is there, without having to make extreme efforts to capture or hunt for anything. I like not having to “try” to do anything, and while I respect those who do, I don’t envy them.
And I don’t like to carry a lot of lenses into the field. I travel light, with a small 10x10” messenger bag with diffusers, and the like, and with a tripod, a camera, and most often one lens. Something I will carry a second lens, one that is more of a wide-angle.
I have no trouble photographing all kinds of insects, many even stacking the photos, with a manual-focus lens like the CV125. I have learned patience. In fact, many if not most of the great macro lenses are manual focus and, sad to say, those with autofocus have their own problems in my experience. I have sold off most of them.
I wish Jack the best of luck with his new site, which is IMO a field guide site, with the kind of photography we see in field guides. Heaven knows I know what fields guides are like.
If there is something that I don’t agree with, and I have made my opinion known, is that a lens like the CV125 has to be labeled a “studio” lens and that a lens like the Sigma 180mm macro is somehow a superior lens. This makes no sense to me because in practice I don’t find it true.
We use different lenses for different tasks, and we are each sensitive to different things that we appreciate and value in a lens. I have had probably all of the Nikon-adaptable lenses that have autofocus, and don’t feel I needed any of them, except for (again) fast moving insects. I keep one on hand, the VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm.
I have carried the CV125 over hill and dale for many years, on mountains, into bogs and swamps, etc. As for the urgency in making claims for the Sigma 180mm Macro, I am reminded of a political exchange that we had in the news recently during the Democratic debate, when Hilary Clinton was having endless hassles about her email server. During one debate Bernie Sanders finally said.. “Enough about your damn emails, Hilary.” I feel the same way about the Sigma lens and Jack’s statements about the CV125. This comment is meant to be funny, not aggressive.
So, let’s drop this and go photograph something. One thing I did get out of all of this is to pull my CV125 off the back shelf and use it. Here is a photograph I took with it this morning in the studio, surrounded outside by snow and ice.
The second photo is the kind of photo I will I will be taking in a few months, also taken with the CV125.
“Every one to his own taste, said the old lady as she kissed the cow.”
-
As I mentioned back in the beginning, there is a major difference between shooting static subjects in a studio setting, or even shooting flowers in your garden (where you're comfortable, where you know and can control your subject) and wildlife photography (where your opportunities can be sporadic, in UNcomfortable settings, and fleeting).
I agree with you.
We're talking about good lenses here; comparing their optical quality is IMHO splitting hairs. If I was doing wildlife photography, I'd take IS and decent working distance over slight optical quality advantage any day -- in the field, they are way more important.
I own Canon 100/2.8 macro, my friend owns 100/2.8L IS. I lent him mine to do a quick comparison, and here is the result (http://snakes-home-shop.tumblr.com/post/133809005484/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2-canon).
Even if there is a difference (and MTF charts would suggest there is, and quite big!), its utterly insignificant. What you pay for in L version are ruggedness and IS, which makes a world of difference in the field (or rather "in the real world" - anywhere outside of studio).
-
I own Canon 100/2.8 macro, my friend owns 100/2.8L IS. I lent him mine to do a quick comparison, and here is the result (http://snakes-home-shop.tumblr.com/post/133809005484/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2-canon).
Even if there is a difference (and MTF charts would suggest there is, and quite big!), its utterly insignificant.
BTW, is it really there? My friend doesn't see it (except for a very slight FOV difference).
The fact that comment over there is in Russian should facilitate blind test...
-
Hi,
What aperture was used? Once you go past f/8 there would probably be little difference between good lenses.
Best regards
Erik
BTW, is it really there? My friend doesn't see it (except for a very slight FOV difference).
The fact that comment over there is in Russian should facilitate blind test...
-
What aperture was used? Once you go past f/8 there would probably be little difference between good lenses.
I didn't even ask him, but from what I see in EXIFs, they are all f/8.
He had a set of shots of that ancient watch that he was repairing (his hobby), and then asked me for my 100/2.8 "to compare". What I do know is that he re-shot all images to match what he originally had in his blog, so that was most definitely "real world" comparison for him.
-
I am not interested in getting into an argument here or in trying to respond to all of things that Jack points out that I didn’t “realize.”
I always thought there was a difference between a debate and an argument.
You made a wonderful review of your "pet" lens on your own thread ... and I tried to show you the respect of not posting my dissenting views on "your" thread (but to create my own).
Giving a nod to your article, I created this thread topic regarding what IMO is the optimal lens for wildlife macro photography, noting the differences between studio photography.
If you have no rebuttals for what I've said, then just say so.
Again, IMO your own words, on your own eBook, pretty much underscored the differences I was trying to point out.
And, quite frankly, I think it was pretty clear you didn't realize the differences in your eBook ... which is what left you so "puzzled" and "embarrassed" (your own words) when you attempted to use the CV 125 in an un-controlled situation.
I have been a confirmed naturalist since I was six years old, after I received some mentoring by a wonderful woman naturalist who was a friend of my mom. I know very well what it is like to hunt, stalk, drive great distances, etc. to try to find all kinds specimens to capture for scientific purposes, just for fun, or to photograph. I have contributed very large collections to a major museum, etc.
Would you care to share some of those photos?
So far, all I have seen from you are studio and garden shots.
The subject of this thread is macro lenses for wildlife photographers.
I myself have done pretty much the same thing as Jack is describing and for many years. I have already pointed out I believe more than once here that there are lenses (auto-focus) that are better for capturing flying insects, like damsel flies, for example. I have also made clear that where I am today with all of this is that photographically “trying” to capture insects no longer interests me. Nada.
If taking photographs of wild arthropods, etc. doesn't interest you, then you should show some respect for the interests of others and not comment at all.
Based on your own words, in your own eBook, I don't think you do have much true wildlife macro experience, as every macro shot I have seen you post is clearly a studio post (or an image taken in a garden). You claim to have all these wildlife macro photos, but so far I haven't seen one. What I have seen are studio shots (and your admission of being perplexed by the lack of results you got, attempting to shoot single-shot macros on tame public grounds).
Since we're going to discuss LACK of interest, allow me to "go there" as well.
Me, I have ZERO interest in taking non-challenging photos of flowers.
My mother is a dedicated gardener/florist, with oodles of perfect, highly-colorful flowers that she maintains religiously ... (indoors/outdoors, everywhere) ... that I could set up any day I want, in perfect light, put my equipment in front of it, and take 100-shot stacks in any pre-fabbed position I wanted ... and then call myself a "nature photographer" (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
But that would put me to sleep quite frankly (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/yawn.gif)
And it would also be untrue ...
I am very much what you would call a photographer of the “found,” whatever is there, without having to make extreme efforts to capture or hunt for anything. I like not having to “try” to do anything, and while I respect those who do, I don’t envy them.
Well, that sword cuts both ways: while I enjoy the colors and lines of beautiful flowers like anyone, I have a thousand-times more respect, and appreciation for, those photographers who are able to capture perfect nature shots ... because they take a thousand-times more effort, dedication, skill, time, and trial-and-error to achieve.
In fact in the photomacrography.net, they distinguish and won't allow studio/stack shots in their nature forum (same as NatGeo won't allow them either), because there is a major difference. The scrutiny for studio stacks is also much higher, because anyone can sit there all day, compose, re-compose, adjust the lighting, stack-away, etc.
You can't do that in nature photography (not usually), so it is MUCH harder to get "the perfect shot" with the light God dealt you in whatever fleeting moment you're given.
And I don’t like to carry a lot of lenses into the field. I travel light, with a small 10x10” messenger bag with diffusers, and the like, and with a tripod, a camera, and most often one lens. Something I will carry a second lens, one that is more of a wide-angle.
Exactly my point ... the Sigma 180 is the perfect wildlife macro lens ... it needs nothing.
And we agree on the second point, the only other lens I bring is a wide-angle.
I have no trouble photographing all kinds of insects, many even stacking the photos, with a manual-focus lens like the CV125. I have learned patience. In fact, many if not most of the great macro lenses are manual focus and, sad to say, those with autofocus have their own problems in my experience. I have sold off most of them.
I have yet to see a single wildlife shot from you.
(Bees and flies in your backyard don't count IMO.)
I know published, wildlife macro shooters all over the world, and I can't think of a single one of them who uses a MF lens for wildlife.
I wish Jack the best of luck with his new site, which is IMO a field guide site, with the kind of photography we see in field guides. Heaven knows I know what fields guides are like.
Thank you.
And, here again, "the kind of photography" you do doesn't qualify as "wildlife" photography, by even the loosest definition.
As I mentioned earlier, the site has a community Encounter area (to share photos that are only so-so) and a personal Gallery area (for your best nature shots)
IMO, the following are beautiful, non-staged, actual wildlife photos easily on a par with any studio shot you've posted ... taken under FAR "less optimal" conditions:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000249_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/176/249/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001096_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/610/1096/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000403_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/598/403/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000882_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/464/882/medium)
Honestly, to me, sitting at home taking stack-shots of flowers ... and calling yourself "a nature photographer" ... is like going out in your backyard, shooting fish in your pond, and calling yourself a "hunter" (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif)
If there is something that I don’t agree with, and I have made my opinion known, is that a lens like the CV125 has to be labeled a “studio” lens and that a lens like the Sigma 180mm macro is somehow a superior lens. This makes no sense to me because in practice I don’t find it true.
The Sigma is a superior all-around lens, for wildlife macro photography ... and by a country mile.
If you disagree, it is only because you don't actually leave your backyard ...
We use different lenses for different tasks, and we are each sensitive to different things that we appreciate and value in a lens. I have had probably all of the Nikon-adaptable lenses that have autofocus, and don’t feel I needed any of them, except for (again) fast moving insects. I keep one on hand, the VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm.
Yes, exactly, and the Nikkor 105 is #2 on my list (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13).
It is essentially equal-quality to the Sigma 180mm ... except it lacks the reach, the tripod collar, and the working distance.
I have carried the CV125 over hill and dale for many years, on mountains, into bogs and swamps, etc. As for the urgency in making claims for the Sigma 180mm Macro, I am reminded of a political exchange that we had in the news recently during the Democratic debate, when Hilary Clinton was having endless hassles about her email server. During one debate Bernie Sanders finally said.. “Enough about your damn emails, Hilary.” I feel the same way about the Sigma lens and Jack’s statements about the CV125. This comment is meant to be funny, not aggressive.
That's okay, but remember, you have sung your praises "over hill-and-dale" of the CV 125 ... while actually only showing photos taken in a studio setting.
The only open review I have seen of your taking this lens anywhere but home, was when you went to "an event" (non-wildlife) and struggled to get the same results you enjoyed at home ... which (again) brings us full circle to my point (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I created this thread for 2 purposes, one to sing the praises of what I consider to be "the perfect macro lens," and to draw some hard lines in the differences in where each excels.
So, let’s drop this and go photograph something. One thing I did get out of all of this is to pull my CV125 off the back shelf and use it. Here is a photograph I took with it this morning in the studio, surrounded outside by snow and ice.
The second photo is the kind of photo I will I will be taking in a few months, also taken with the CV125.
I agree on the "let's take photos" Pepsi challenge.
My D810 and my Sigma are scheduled to arrive Tuesday ... which I believe will make a tremendous difference in the color/clarity of my images over the 7D ... and I will be posting nature shots with them by next weekend.
As for your shots, the studio shot is gorgeous (as it should be where you get to control everything, and take as many stacks as you like).
The other shot is average, and (again) for some reason it looks like something was lost in the upload.
“Every one to his own taste, said the old lady as she kissed the cow.”
Agreed again.
I prefer women women with curves (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/mrgreen.gif)
Jack
-
I posted a shot a few posts back of two syrphid flies. That was not done in a studio.
Your original post title was "Macro Lens Comparison," and you invoked me in it. I was suggesting some alternatives to the Sigma lens, etc. Wildlife photos don't by necessity require auto-focus for all of us and your personal idea of wildlife photos is not the only one out there. There are many of us who do wildlife photography in the summer and studio whatever-we-can in the winter. I suggest a little more tolerance of other views might be helpful.
Here is another shot taken with the Nikon D810 not-in-the-studio, perhaps not what you might like, but what I like.
-
I agree with you.
We're talking about good lenses here; comparing their optical quality is IMHO splitting hairs. If I was doing wildlife photography, I'd take IS and decent working distance over slight optical quality advantage any day -- in the field, they are way more important.
Agreed.
I have owned both the Canon 100 and the Canon 100L (twice for the latter).
Even if there is a difference (and MTF charts would suggest there is, and quite big!), its utterly insignificant. What you pay for in L version are ruggedness and IS, which makes a world of difference in the field (or rather "in the real world" - anywhere outside of studio).
The Canon 100L is probably the single best "pure hand-holding" macro lens I've shot with.
I ultimately got rid of it because it is terrible for manual-focusing, in those instances where you can use Live View and really make some subtle adjustments.
(With only 150-degrees of focus throw, it was very "touchy" and over/under-corrected almost every time I touched it.)
Even if there is a difference (and MTF charts would suggest there is, and quite big!), its utterly insignificant. What you pay for in L version are ruggedness and IS, which makes a world of difference in the field (or rather "in the real world" - anywhere outside of studio).
If you like ruggedness, the Sigma 180 makes the Canon 100L (and the Canon 180L, for that matter) feel like a toy.
Optically, it blows them both out of the water, doing everything the 100L can do (AF/IS), and doing everything the 180L can do (reach, isolate the background) ... while rendering all-around better image-quality across the board (check the stats).
Jack
-
I posted a shot a few posts back of two syrphid flies. That was not done in a studio.
Okay.
Your original post title was "Macro Lens Comparison," and you invoked me in it.
That was my title. My opening 2 paragraphs (after the photograph) were:
- "I just completed a blog entry about macro lenses, from the perspective of a nature photographer (not studio photographer). One fellow here (Michael Erlewine) wrote a wonderful piece (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98645.0) about some exotic macro lenses, which article I still have bookmarked, as it was really quite informative.
However, Mr. Erlewine's perspective came from a studio photographer, where you have all the time in the world to set up, get the light right, and focus ... whereas mine comes from the perspective of selecting a macro lens for out in the field, trying to photograph live subjects, where your window of opportunity is fleeting, and your subjects may be moving."
Again, I think your own mishaps outside a studio setting, outlined on p. 44 of your eBook (http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/e-books/Close-Up_Macro_2012.pdf), reinforce my distinction.
I was suggesting some alternatives to the Sigma lens, etc.
You already had your say, I was merely offering mine.
Wildlife photos don't by necessity require auto-focus for all of us and your personal idea of wildlife photos is not the only one out there.
I agree, but I can only share my perspective, right?
You shared yours; I shared mine.
As mentioned *many* times, I try always to use manual focus ... however, my entire point is I sure love having that AF and OS (as well as the reach) when faced with those circumstances where I cannot (and there are plenty). My point has repeatedly been the guy with the MF only lens has nothing to fall back on ... I do.
So, here again, I maintain that you are not a nature photographer. I say this respectfully, but adamantly.
You can call "my kind of shots" field guide shots ... but field guides are comprised of nature photography, are they not? :D
(I have never seen a highly-stacked image of a potted plant in a nature field guide, or National Geographic, yet ...)
IMO, the very fact you admitted to being confused and bewildered, while using your D800E and the Voightlander 125 APO in a park setting, as opposed to your home (let alone out in a true wildlife situation) ... citing the very tools you thought would have helped you (AF/IS--which is exactly what I have been saying all along) ... underscored the fact you are used to having everything in a studio setting, under your control, which nature seldom provides.
Me? I think it's cheating going to a "city park." I can't properly call that a "wildlife excursion."
It's a softball pitch, and not one I try to do much, to be quite honest.
I think taking "studio shots of flowers" is like hitting a T-ball (or shooting fish in a barrel).
But, hey, different strokes, right?
Back to your struggle with taking acceptable images with the D800E and the Voightlander 125 in a simple park setting:
I can't imaging any true, bona fide wildlife photographer struggling to understand "why" his shots weren't coming out like he'd hoped while shooting in a mere city park.
I think the very fact you were confused under these comparatively-modest challenges belies your claim of having extreme wildlife macro experience.
In my view, the only way someone would be "confused" shooting macro in a city park would be someone who is used to setting up everything to be "perfect," in the comfort of his home, suddenly at a loss when faced with less-than-favorable conditions.
I don't say this to be mean, it is just what I honestly think.
I think you are used to your niche ... at home ... and were discombobulated when faced with a few challenges outside of your normal comfort zone and absolute control.
Here is another shot taken with the Nikon D810 not-in-the-studio, perhaps not what you might like, but what I like.
The colors look beautiful when small, however when I enlarge for some reason the image quality degrades.
Anyway, enough bickering.
I appreciate your views on the Voightlander. I was actually a hair from buying one on eBay ... but someone beat me to it.
I will probably try it at some point, for studio stacks, which seems to be where it excels.
In closing, I have said my peace and you have said yours. We both have different passions, different interests, and thereby use different tools.
(Which is only natural ... and which is why I made this separate thread, and distinction, in the first place.)
Cheers (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/bier.gif)
Jack
-
I had the chance to play a bit with the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO on the D810.
Those aren't macro images, but the lens is very sweet for generic shooting too!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1582/24206402999_8b1d484062_o.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1568/24491798021_542d85c52e_o.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1584/24465775842_0d06df51bc_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had the chance to play a bit with the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO on the D810.
Those aren't macro images, but the lens is very sweet for generic shooting too!
Cheers,
Bernard
The CV-125 is also good for mid-range and landscape shots. as well as close-up and macro. I first learned about this lens (and many others) from Bjørn Rørslett at NikonGear.com, years ago. His original site is still available, and close-up lenses can be found at this link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
IMO, Nikongear.com is one of the finests sites for discussing lenses, certainly the best I have ever seen.
I am sure you will enjoy the lens.
-
Like Michael, I learned about the 125 Voigtlander from Bjorn Rorslett. I wish I had more occasion to use it...but if I want best quality macro, this is the lens I go to despite having several Canon and Tamron close-up lenses. See attached Termites swarming in spring 2011 - good food for migratory warblers in Central Park shot with the 125 Voigtlander.
By the way, suggesting that one has to do field photography to be a true nature photographer (as compared to working in one's home) seems to me like saying that because one does DNA analysis in a lab (such as many people do in the American Museum of Natural History), they are not scientists or natural history experts...I know lots of people who collect samples to analyze - but otherwise rarely go outside...yet in their field (e.g. the systematics of birds of prey), they are at the top of their field. All in all, who cares what it is called - it is the results (the images) that matter.
-
Very large partly wooded urban parks with water features are "migrant traps". Bird on looong flight sees lots of unappealing houses, shopping malls, etc, then flies past a beautiful wooded park with food and water - perfect overnight stay.
Central Park NYC, 843 acres, bird list, courtesy of Audubon Soc., has 200 or so regularly seen species:
http://www.nycaudubon.org/pdf/birds-cpark-doc-oficial.pdf
St. Louis MO's Forest Park, 1371 acres, has had 215 regular and rare species since 1971:
http://www.forestparkforever.org/bird-watching/
So, I don't put down the possibilities for observation (and photography) in urban parks. My latest observation, sadly without a camera (it was windchill -10 F, I was out exercising past the streams) was a presumably wild (as opposed to escaped) mink - a creature I haven't seen in an urban park before. But - the park is the right size and has really nice water features (fishing) for this aquatic mustelid. Forest Park is my perfect "on-call" photo/observation and exercise site - less than 5 minutes from my flat, 15 minutes to the hospital. That's a consideration if you have to be on call (able to reach hospital in less than 45 minutes) one or more weekends per month.
BTW, these are wildlife shots done with the hand-held non-stabilized Canon 180 macro (admittedly, low-res sized for my photo club - it's what I have on the flash drive away from my photo processing computer):
First: adult Cottonmouth, resting (these are cranky poisonous snakes) - this one with the 180 plus 1.4x teleconverter - squatting on ground
Second: inch long Northern Fence Lizard, sitting on a stone railing at a state park - my lens foot was parked on the other end of the railing
Third: Eastern Hognose doing its threat display (splaying its neck wide, cobra-style) - state conservation area - taken while leaning against a tree.
-
By the way, suggesting that one has to do field photography to be a true nature photographer (as compared to working in one's home) seems to me like saying that because one does DNA analysis in a lab (such as many people do in the American Museum of Natural History), they are not scientists or natural history experts...I know lots of people who collect samples to analyze - but otherwise rarely go outside...yet in their field (e.g. the systematics of birds of prey), they are at the top of their field. All in all, who cares what it is called - it is the results (the images) that matter.
I disagree with your analysis.
The moment you touch a subject, it is no longer "nature" photography; it is studio photography.
You are fundamentally-confused regarding the differences between science and nature.
Yes, scientists are vital. They take specimens into the lab and study the results. But the photographs they take are not "nature photos."
Nature photography is un-manipulated, in situ, photography, taken in undisturbed settings, without any human interference or influence.
I have taken many subjects from the wild, and brought back specimens of the plants on which they were found, and taken photos of the live subject placed upon the kind of plant on which I found them.
But this is studio photography (where the results have been published in scientific papers).
In no way, shape, or form can this be properly called nature photography ...
Jack
-
Very large partly wooded urban parks with water features are "migrant traps". Bird on looong flight sees lots of unappealing houses, shopping malls, etc, then flies past a beautiful wooded park with food and water - perfect overnight stay.
Central Park NYC, 843 acres, bird list, courtesy of Audubon Soc., has 200 or so regularly seen species:
http://www.nycaudubon.org/pdf/birds-cpark-doc-oficial.pdf
St. Louis MO's Forest Park, 1371 acres, has had 215 regular and rare species since 1971:
http://www.forestparkforever.org/bird-watching/
So, I don't put down the possibilities for observation (and photography) in urban parks. My latest observation, sadly without a camera (it was windchill -10 F, I was out exercising past the streams) was a presumably wild (as opposed to escaped) mink - a creature I haven't seen in an urban park before. But - the park is the right size and has really nice water features (fishing) for this aquatic mustelid. Forest Park is my perfect "on-call" photo/observation and exercise site - less than 5 minutes from my flat, 15 minutes to the hospital. That's a consideration if you have to be on call (able to reach hospital in less than 45 minutes) one or more weekends per month.
BTW, these are wildlife shots done with the hand-held non-stabilized Canon 180 macro (admittedly, low-res sized for my photo club - it's what I have on the flash drive away from my photo processing computer):
First: adult Cottonmouth, resting (these are cranky poisonous snakes) - this one with the 180 plus 1.4x teleconverter - squatting on ground
Second: inch long Northern Fence Lizard, sitting on a stone railing at a state park - my lens foot was parked on the other end of the railing
Third: Eastern Hognose doing its threat display (splaying its neck wide, cobra-style) - state conservation area - taken while leaning against a tree.
Point well taken.
The last vestigial holdouts of wildlife within the cement world of man ...
Nice photos too :)
Jack
PS: Hope to share some with my new D810 and the Sigma 180 by this weekend ;D
-
All in all, who cares what it is called - it is the results (the images) that matter.
Not so.
If a person is able to set up a subject in the convenience of his home, and then place every form of optimal lighting at his disposal around the subject, and then manipulate and re-position the subject as often as he wishes ... and follow that by taking as many photos of the subject as he wishes ... then what he produces MUST be held to a higher-standard ... than a man who attempts to photograph a wild, elusive subject ... untouched, un-manipulated, and undisturbed ... that chance placed before him in nature (in whatever lighting conditions were available) ... and for but a fleeting moment before it disappears.
If you cannot understand the difference, then there is no point in even discussing the subject of nature photography with you :-\
Jack
-
Single-shot, natural light, "fleeting moment," true nature photos with the Sigma 180 APO macro (taken last year with the Canon 7D) ...
I hope to get even better results this year with my new Nikon D810 ...
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001239_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/547/1239/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001173_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/626/1173/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001238_small.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/623/1238)
Jack
-
I had the chance to play a bit with the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO on the D810.
Those aren't macro images, but the lens is very sweet for generic shooting too!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1582/24206402999_8b1d484062_o.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1568/24491798021_542d85c52e_o.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1584/24465775842_0d06df51bc_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
No disrespect, but anyone could take shots like that.
The point of this particular thread topic is macro lenses for wildlife nature photography.
Standing there taking photos of immobile asphalt, iron gates, and corrugated steel doesn't qualify.
The real question is, what do you do with that lens in nature?
Aside from the granted (static) image quality, what do you do when you have a tiny subject land (or present itself), for a fleeting moment, on a hike?
- Do you have a tripod collar, so you can you instantly-compose your shot? Nope.
- Do you have a truly-optimal working distance? Nope.
- Can you depress the shutter and achieve instant AF (before it's too late)? Nope.
- Can you pop the camera off the tripod, and handhold, with the back up of OS? Nope.
These are questions nature photographers want to know.
Therefore, while I congratulate you on the new lens, the way to evaluate it for this thread topic (Macro Nature Photography), is not to take random shots of large, inanimate objects on the street ... but to go on a long hike, far away from the comforts of home, and try to take 1:1 (or thereabouts) photos of live, fleeting, and random opportunities of the flora and (even more difficult) fauna ... and then post your findings here ;)
Jack
-
For the last two years I've been shooting wild alpine flowers with a 100 mm MF. The real challenge is the wind. Here are some shots of the king of the alpine flowers: Ranunculus glacialis L., on a windy pass at 2545 m. To protect the flowers from the wind, I built a little stone wall. A guy I met there, feeling compassion for me, tried even to protect them with his jacket... Not very good photos, but I still feel the wind on my face, this is for me the real meaning of this photographs (the second one is a bizarre looking stack of three photos.)
-
For the last two years I've been shooting wild alpine flowers with a 100 mm MF. The real challenge is the wind. Here are some shots of the king of the alpine flowers: Ranunculus glacialis L., on a windy pass at 2545 m. To protect the flowers from the wind, I built a little stone wall. A guy I met there, feeling compassion for me, tried even to protect them with his jacket... Not very good photos, but I still feel the wind on my face, this is for me the real meaning of this photographs (the second one is a bizarre looking stack of three photos.)
Thanks for sharing. (Love mountain flower pics :) )
I really liked the middle image ...
Flowers are a bit handier for shooting wildlife with MF ... and, I agree, wind can be troublesome regardless of what you're shooting.
Here are a couple of flower shots I got with the Sigma 180:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001112_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=67)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000996_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=54)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001102_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=65)
(Clicking on the image allows you to see the conditions under which each was taken :) )
The last one was a stack, that didn't come out so great, precisely because of the wind :-\
Jack
-
The point of this particular thread topic is macro lenses for wildlife nature photography.
Well, this thread appears to be about macro lenses above all, right?
Since I believe that many owners of macro lenses also use these lenses for other purposes, I feel that feedback about how useful a lens is for general work may come handy as one decision criteria.
I know for a fact that I have always used my macro lenses (Zeiss 100mm f2 till now) both as a stitching lens for distant landscape and as a macro lens when a macro opportunity shows up.
Is there really a need to try to shut up all the photographers who are not only into hard core macro work?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The joy of 180mm macro comes when shooting darn near wide open - bokehlicious. John K.'s skipper on thistle illustrates this well. You can see the color blob in the background and know it is another thistle, but it isn't otherwise recognizable. Most of the effect is due to the generous focal length. For close ups in the 1:4 to 1:3 range, I bet that a lot of people are trying out the new Canon 100-400 at 400(or using the old 300 f/4). And yes, you can use macro lenses to shoot non-macro - I might not choose to use them for sports or birds in flight, the AF is necessarily slower. (In the case of the Voigtlander, v-e-r-y slow, ie, not there. But it is fine for manual focus general use as long as one isn't racking back from 1:1 to infinity.). But the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and corresponding Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 have been popular for a long time as general-use lenses. No, not as fabulous as one of the really fast portrait lenses for bokeh - but useful.
-
Well, this thread appears to be about macro lenses above all, right?
Not so.
The distinction made at the opening post, and pretty much every page throughout, was macro lenses for wildlife photography.
Since I believe that many owners of macro lenses also use these lenses for other purposes, I feel that feedback about how useful a lens is for general work may come handy as one decision criteria.
True, but absolutely off-topic.
People use wide-angles also but, again, this has nothing to do with the topic.
I know for a fact that I have always used my macro lenses (Zeiss 100mm f2 till now) both as a stitching lens for distant landscape and as a macro lens when a macro opportunity shows up.
I have used many macro lenses for portraits, etc., but here again this is off-topic.
Is there really a need to try to shut up all the photographers who are not only into hard core macro work?
Cheers,
Bernard
It seems very difficult to keep people on point.
We have one guy confusing science with nature.
We have another posting photos of gates and asphalt.
At one point, telephoto lenses were discussed.
Next thing we know, someone is going to say how their Canon 800 mm super-telephoto renders photos.
There are many good lenses; there are many kinds of lenses; there are many sub-categories of similar lenses within a range (studio vs. street, etc.).
The subject of this thread is the best macro lenses for wildlife ... so, while I wouldn't be so rude as to tell you to "shut up" Bernard (lol), I can remind you of the thread-topic, point out how your images have nothing to do with it, and respectfully encourage you to try sharing photos with your lens ... within the topic ;D
Jack
PS: And none of these images are "hardcore macro work" (except in the middle of p. 5)
-
The subject of this thread is the best macro lenses for wildlife ... so, while I wouldn't be so rude as to tell you to "shut up" Bernard (lol), I can remind you of the thread-topic, point out how your images have nothing to do with it, and respectfully encourage you to try sharing photos with your lens ... within the topic ;D
Jack,
OK, apologies, this is your thread, I won't do it again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The joy of 180mm macro comes when shooting darn near wide open - bokehlicious. John K.'s skipper on thistle illustrates this well. You can see the color blob in the background and know it is another thistle, but it isn't otherwise recognizable. Most of the effect is due to the generous focal length. For close ups in the 1:4 to 1:3 range, I bet that a lot of people are trying out the new Canon 100-400 at 400(or using the old 300 f/4). And yes, you can use macro lenses to shoot non-macro - I might not choose to use them for sports or birds in flight, the AF is necessarily slower. (In the case of the Voigtlander, v-e-r-y slow, ie, not there. But it is fine for manual focus general use as long as one isn't racking back from 1:1 to infinity.). But the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and corresponding Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 have been popular for a long time as general-use lenses. No, not as fabulous as one of the really fast portrait lenses for bokeh - but useful.
We agree on a lot, Nancy :)
(Bokehlicious, lol, I will have to remember that ;D )
The ability to be versatile was part of what my original criteria was in my rating system (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) ... in fact, versatility in one macro lens to take with you on a day's wildlife journey was the central theme of my rating system.
Trying to find the macro lens that has the reach, the image quality, the build quality ... plus the modern amenities of excellent AF/IS, etc. ... all under one cover ... to handle as many situations as possible ... and to do it at a very high level.
After 7 pages of discussion, I still maintain that #s 1 and 2 remain in their rightful place :)
Jack
-
I guess since this thread is labelled “Macro Lens Comparison,” I will just have to actually compare some lenses, but really you meant just that one lens, the Sigma 180mm macro. I managed to find a used copy of the Sigma 180mm APO lens that you reviewed for a reasonable price, so I have ordered it and will check it out.
If it is that good then it may replace my Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for action shooting and, perhaps, be useful for other things as well.
My fear, from studying the many MTF charts online, is that it is a little soft wide-open for a lot of my work. I don’t mind heaviness in a lens and, of course, I like the rotating collar.
I do have questions as to how well-corrected it is, and its “micro-contrast,” but I will check that out.
I wish you had labelled your thread “Macro Lens Comparison for Wildlife Photography." You do make that clear eventually, but your first post looked to me like it was just comparing macro lenses, starting with one that you happen to use for wildlife.
-
I guess since this thread is labelled “Macro Lens Comparison,” I will just have to actually compare some lenses, but really you meant just that one lens, the Sigma 180mm macro. I managed to find a used copy of the Sigma 180mm APO lens that you reviewed for a reasonable price, so I have ordered it and will check it out.
I am sincerely interested in your opinion.
If it is that good then it may replace my Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for action shooting and, perhaps, be useful for other things as well.
It will definitely beat that one ...
My fear, from studying the many MTF charts online, is that it is a little soft wide-open for a lot of my work. I don’t mind heaviness in a lens and, of course, I like the rotating collar.
For your specific purposes, I don't believe it will out-do the Voightlander (in fact, I plan on following your recommendations and purchasing a Voightlander for stack-work).
However, as a rugged, go-to, VERY high-quality, multi-dimensional, wildlife macro lens, I think you will be pleased with the Sigma 180 APO :)
I do have questions as to how well-corrected it is, and its “micro-contrast,” but I will check that out.
I will defer to your expertise on that, and expect the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO to fall somewhat short of the Voightlander f/2.5 APO in this area ... but not by too much ... same as I am 100% confident the Sigma will do things that the Voightlander will not (cannot) do, out in the field ... which is why I attempted to draw the distinction.
I wish you had labelled your thread “Macro Lens Comparison for Wildlife Photography." You do make that clear eventually, but your first post looked to me like it was just comparing macro lenses, starting with one that you happen to use for wildlife.
I made it clear in my opening line actually ... but I edited the main thread heading so there would be no more confusion :)
Cheers,
Jack
-
Jack,
I believe that you will be pleased with the D810.
Even today, one year and a half after its availability, I am still awed by the files, especially at base ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have to echo this sentiment as well.
I have only played with the D810 at this point, but already the image-quality makes my old Canon 7D seem like a toy compared to truly precision equipment :-\
I am reading the manual, and learning how to use a Nikon, and hope to post some photos of the Nikon D810 + Sigma 180 after the weekend :)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/January/gear.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?10)
-
The Nikon D810 is by far the best camera I have ever owned. In particular, the true ISO 64 and the fact that LiveView can be used for fine focus, but it use a LOT of batteries if you use LiveView, which I do all the time.
As for the CV-125, the best lensmen I know value it not only for close-up and 1:1, but also for mid-range and landscape. It is sharp all the way out and the color and bokeh are wonderful. However, I warn you that the D810 will cause you to reevaluate all your lenses. I had to. And it is very-well corrected and has a draw unique to it IMO. The Zeiss Otus lenses are the best, but the CV-125 is the best all-around macro lens, unless you need auto-focus.
-
The Nikon D810 is by far the best camera I have ever owned. In particular, the true ISO 64 and the fact that LiveView can be used for fine focus, but it use a LOT of batteries if you use LiveView, which I do all the time.
I can see that.
The bokeh and resolution in the few "play" images I've taken with the corresponding-new Sigma are incredible.
I try to use LiveView whenever possible, and ordered extra batteries too (based on your tip), so thanks.
As for the CV-125, the best lensmen I know value it not only for close-up and 1:1, but also for mid-range and landscape. It is sharp all the way out and the color and bokeh are wonderful.
I have no doubt of this.
The distinction I made was being "quick on the draw," while maintaining excellent image quality.
The Sigma 180 may not (quite) match the Zeiss or the Voightlander in resolution, etc. ... but it's in the ballpark ... while offering amenities (reach, AF, IS/VR, tripod collar, weather sealing) that none of these "high-res" lenses even have.
I guess the best way to put it is, NO OTHER modern macro lens (that does have AF/IS) has the same quality or reach of the Sigma lens.
The only lenses that have (slightly) better image quality, like the Voightlander, do NOT have any of the amenities of the Sigma AT ALL (no tripod collar, no AF, no IS/VR, and not the reach).
Therefore, while in static environments, these lenses may offer slightly better image quality ... in challenging, rapidly-changing environments these precision lenses offer NOTHING ... while the Sigma offers everything.
This is distinction I was trying to underscore ...
However, I warn you that the D810 will cause you to reevaluate all your lenses. I had to. And it is very-well corrected and has a draw unique to it IMO.
Lol, well, I only have 2 Nikon-compatible lenses at the moment :)
However, I believe the D810 makes the Sigma all the more desirable ... the smoothness/bokeh is incredible (will share photos soon!)
The Zeiss Otus lenses are the best, but the CV-125 is the best all-around macro lens, unless you need auto-focus.
Well, the Sigma 180 offers more than just AF ...
The simple fact is, wildlife macro shooting often calls for the instant rotation of a tripod collar ... longer reach ... AF (yes) ... image-stabilization (if forced to hand-hold) ... weather-sealing (when it starts drizzling), etc.
It's not just about image quality (which the Sigma has in spades) ... it's also the amenities ... every single amenity currently possible ... in back of very high image quality (rather than ZERO amenities, should challenging circumstances arise :-\)
Jack
-
Found another article which articulated my sentiments exactly:
F-Stoppers (https://fstoppers.com/product/fstoppers-reviews-sigma-180mm-f28-macro-lens-5523):
"When testing, I didn’t just want to keep this beautiful beast of a lens in the studio. I wanted to take it into the real world, lug it around, and see how it performed in various light and environmental situations ...
"What was most admirable about the auto focus is that it rarely found the need to focus all the way in, then all the way out, then back in to where it was close to being sharp. When lenses do that, it irritates me to no end. Luckily, the lens is high enough quality to hover around the focus point and find it without shooting around willy nilly through the whole focus range of the lens. Anger and frustration curtailed ...
"The next day in broad daylight, I tested the auto focus again and it was snappy, accurate, and silent. Perfect.
"The manual focus is smooth quiet, and very precise. These are all features that matter in a lens, and the Sigma nails every one.
"In all my tests, there was absolutely zero vignetting at any aperture- yet another plus. If I want a vignette, I can add it in post.
"What I like:
Fast, quiet, responsive auto focus
Super sharp across all apertures
Shows gorgeous detail
Has a sturdy and well-built feel
Opens wide to f/2.8
"What I dislike:
At 3.5 pounds, it’s pretty heavy (Boo hoo. I’ll get over it. )
It can struggle with auto focus in low light situations
...
"I love this lens. It can help me create some stunningly beautiful wildlife photos, which is exactly what a lens like this is designed to handle. When shooting with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro, I was not thinking about the lens, but about my subjects. That is the core difference between a lens I love, and a lens I loathe."
Hope this clarifies ...
Jack
-
Just as you look forward to my experience with the Sigma 180mm APO Macro lens, I look forward to your getting to know the Nikon D810 in conjunction with the Sigma 180mm APO. When I first got the Nikon D800E (and of course the D810), I stopped using a great many lenses that I had always used because the camera shows up all the flaws in a lens. Aside from the amenities, which I don't care that much about, what I do care about in a lens is correction, sharpness, speed, and sharpness wide-open. Anyway, it will be interesting.
-
While I am waiting for my copy of the Sigma 180mm APO macro to arrive, I revisited your review of the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO and I have a couple of suggestions as to what I would be looking for in a review that are not there.
I would want to know how well corrected the lens is in some detail, along with MTF charts, so I could see how sharp the lens is wide-open, and where any drop-off sets in, etc.
You quote figures from www.lenscore.org. I can’t find where Lenscore points out how they arrive at their figures, individually, so that concerns me. Putting that aside, here are some Lenscore stats that I would want to look for in lenses. I chose the Sigma 180 that you reviewed, the very highly rated Zeiss Otus 85mm, and the classic Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar as examples.
I will immediately put aside their Total Score for a lens because each of us would arrive at weighting probably differently from Lenscore, and the Sigma 180 does not rate that high comparatively anyway.
I would want to look at Chromatic Aberration, however, because one of the reasons I don’t use my copy of the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar is the abundance of CR with that lens. I see that the Sigma has even more CR than the Zeiss 100mm, so that is troubling.
I see that the Sigma has good sharpness, reasonable bokeh, but not great contrast, color, and some amount of distortion.
Of course, all these numbers have to be tested by actually using the lens, which is what I am doing by purchasing one, after reading your recommendation. I always have to see for myself. And your particular list of lens “amenities” differs from mine, so that parameter can’t be used to dignify a particular lens, except for our particular requirements, which I understand. I have my own list of what I “must have,” which I see are different from yours, etc.
So here is what I come up with. I understand, if I have Lenscore right, that lower numbers are worse and higher numbers are better:
LaCa LoCa Resolve Contrast
Zeiss Otus 85mm 1472 1853 1647 1469
Zeiss MP 100 931 895 1189 1087
Sigma 180mm 839 968 1078 1017
Bokeh Color Distort Total
Zeiss Otus 85mm 1729 1127 1034 1459
Zeiss MP 100 1062 951 1066 1033
Sigma 180mm 1050 964 995 982
The numbers for the Sigma are not totally encouraging IMO, but they do seem to bear out your what you like about the lens. My guess is that I will find this lens, for my work, sharp, with good bokeh, but sub-par when it comes to correction, contrast, and color. I will let you know when I have had a chance to use the lens. Thanks for pointing it out. I had ignored it up to now because of the reasons just mentioned, but it does sound convenient to use for some tasks.
-
In this comparison lower numbers are better, IMO!!
Zeiss Otus 85mm £2,999
Sigma 180mm £1,099
Zeiss MP*100mm £1,168
* Now as Milvus variant, older available still same price give or take (£1,299 quoted)
Now I know being at the cutting/bleeding edge is an expensive place to be but buying the Sigma AND the Zeiss MP and having £700+ left means that Otus has to be special, and those performance figures are compelling, but, are the "conveniences" of the Sigma worth more than outright performance?
I understand the VR argument, but there are writers who argue that does loose the last drop of performance optically, that getting the shot at all outweighs a "better" technical shot missed completely, that seems to be a powerful argument on one side of the thread, understandably, and I do appreciate that. So are we saying the Voigtlander, good as it is but almost being listed under Unobtanium, is bettered anyway by the Otus in a studio/garden/controlled enviroment?
Could I add:
Otus 1:7.7
Milvus 1:2
Sigma 1:1
-
...but, are the "conveniences" of the Sigma worth more than outright performance?
So are we saying the Voigtlander, good as it is but almost being listed under Unobtanium, is bettered anyway by the Otus in a studio/garden/controlled enviroment?
Not in my book. Outright performance is what I value. I have little interest in VR and I don’t trust it. I don’t need it.
The idea that CV-125 is unattainable is not really true anymore. There are CV-125s available on Ebay right now for $1999, $1750, $1919, and still others. That is no excuse any longer.
I also vigorously disagree that lenses like the Otus or even the Voigtlander are for “studio/garden/controlled environment.” LOL. That may be true for some folks, but to me that is just one more view that IMO is a smokescreen.
I have used the CV-125 in the field, on bogs, on mountains, in the wild, etc., mostly on a tripod or a monopod or a gimbal. And I have photographed flying insects as well by using higher apertures and patience. The same with the Otus series from Zeiss.
In good weather, when it is calm out and the Michigan wind is not blowing, I am out in the yard, in the neighborhood, in the parks, but also in the fields, streams, meadowlands, and bogs with hip boots and these lenses, albeit on a tripod.
To say that I am not a “wildlife” photographer because I also like studio work, careful composition, and all of that is ridiculous. Like many of us, I do all of it, as best and as often as I can. I agree with Jack, that we don’t mess with wildlife. I don’t’ refrigerate or in any way interfere with critters. I have worked actively in our area to rehabilitate and release wounded wildlife.
I have been doing this intensely since I was six years old and was taking good photos since I was 14-years old. I have hiked the mountains of Tibet, crashed through the jungles of Nepal, as well as India, etc.
I respect nature more than I respect society and have learned more from nature’s laws than from all the lawyers and society’s laws put together.
However, I don’t conflate fieldwork with studio work in a negative comparison. Neither is superior to the other, just different. Each is just what it is. They are not opposites or competitors.
In recent years I have become less interested in field-guide nature photography and more interested in studying lenses, composition, lighting, and studio work. I can’t wait for the ice and snow to melt and get out in the woods and fields. I am happy to be sharing ideas with other photographers on a thread like this, but the opinion that I am not a nature photographer (as they define it) and a ticket will get you a ride on the bus.
-
Michael, this is silly.
The Otus doesn't belong in the discussion, since it's not a macro lens ::)
Hell, the Otus rates higher than the Canon 600 mm too, but can it do what the 600mm does? (Answer: no).
You keep deviating from the point, even the whole thread topic.
No, the Sigma 180 mm is not the "best" lens in every possible scenario.
However (and pay close attention here) it is the best, most well-rounded wildlife macro lens option.
Again, the Otus doesn't belong in the discussion (slap several inches of extension tubes on it, to get true 1:1, and then tell me what its marks are ...).
Now, regarding the Milvus/Zeiss macro, as I said the Sigma 180 is very close, optically, which it is.
Resolution:
Zeiss: 1204
Sigma: 1078
Color:
Zeiss: 986
Sigma: 964
Contrast:
Zeiss: 1111
Sigma: 1017
Bokeh:
Zeiss: 1057
Sigma: 1050
All you did was throw the Otus in here to confuse the issue.
Sticking to actual macro lenses, you chose not to paint the FULL picture (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) of the differences ::)
How about true 1:1 magnification (to even qualify as a macro lens)?
Sigma 180: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.
How about AF if you need it?
Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.
How about IS if needed?
Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.
How about weather sealing (for those who actually venture outside the studio)?
Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.
The Sigma will simply get you shots that you'll miss with the Zeiss.
And the shots that you do get with the Zeiss will not be any better than those from the Sigma.
Optically, the Zeiss may enjoy a slight edge, but the Sigma is very comparable.
Functionally, in preparation for every possible wildlife situation a macro shooter might encounter, the Sigma blows the Zeiss out of the water, it isn't even a contest.
The Sigma is a fully-equipped instrument, while the Zeiss is bare, stripped, and unarmed.
And then, if you slap an extension tube onto the Zeiss, to make it a true 1:1, it isn't even as good as the Sigma anymore either.
That is about as clear as I can be.
Jack
-
Again, Michael, let's revisit p. 44 of your own Macro eBook (http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/e-books/Close-Up_Macro_2012.pdf), to refresh your memory of the differences, where basically you struggled with your pet lens in a non-studio situation:
- "Single-Shot Live-Subject Macros with the Nikon D800E
"Not sure why I am sharing this: It is not because these are acceptable results, but rather to discuss the challenges that the new D800E offers when it comes to manual focus. I was at an event for a few days, but not one I imagined I would be using macro lenses, so I only brought one, the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar, just as an afterthought. I also brought the Nikon 800E, although I was there to shoot with the Nikon D4 and the Nikkor 24- 70mm and the 70-200mm. Anyway…
"In the early morning one day I had time for some macro shots using the D800E and the CV-125, so I took some single shot photos. It was just a little windy, so stacking on a rail would have been fruitless.
"The results were anything but encouraging, not because there is anything wrong with the D800E that I can see, but because of my own lack of technique. There was not quite enough light for very high apertures, so the DOF was shallow and it shows. It was hard to get enough of the subject in focus to feel comfortable.
"While most of the problems I ran into would be solved if I stacked focus (on a static subject), since I could create my own facsimile of DOF, taking one-off shots proved to me how critical the focus is with this new camera. It was frustrating to say the least. And, it is hard to see in the tiny LCD whether you really have the focus or not.
"I should have brought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR lens. That would have helped. Trying to focus moving subjects with the CV- 125 in only medium light was painful. However, I can say this: The camera is great and even from these relatively unfocussed shots I can see that if I do my homework, that very high-quality shots are possible in the future. But this camera will separate the men from the boys (so to speak), and there is a real learning curve here for single-shot focus on live subjects. Ouch!
"After this experience, I am not so quick to recommend this camera for everyone. It is going to be very painful for those without the 45 patience to focus this baby. Again, a VR auto-focus lens would help, and I have not tried to figure out whether my copy of the D800E has the right/left focus problems. Not sure how to do that. What is an easy test for that?
"So my takeaway is embarrassment at my own technique, and the sense that I need a lot of light for one-offs, higher apertures, and that an autofocus lens would help a lot. I would want a tripod, even for these shots and, at least for now, I have to be ready for a workout. I felt clumsy with the D800E. This camera is demanding when it comes to focus. And as wonderful as this camera is, it appears to me at the moment that for this kind of work, it is a specialty camera, not a general camera, at least in my opinion.
"Of course, I am still a little daunted by the experience, and I can only blame myself for the results. However, I am peaked to try it again soon.
"All shots with the Nikon D800E, CV-125, and an aperture perhaps at f/5.6 or lower, not enough DOF for what was needed."
Again, you noted that having the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-VR would have served you better in the less-than-favorable circumstances you were faced with ... and that the "extra-resolution" and the "color-corectedness" of the Voightlander didn't matter ... if you couldn't nail the shot.
Let me (again) point out that those circumstances you faced were, literally, the proverbial "walk in the park" compared to legitimate wildlife photography ... climbing mountains, traversing the desert, standing in swamps, etc.
At this point, I realize you are going to default to measuring the lens only as a studio lens. That is just what you do.
But to those who actually do very little studio work, and plan on trying to nail great shots of arthropods in the wild, the Sigma 180 will give you Zeiss-comparable image quality ... plus every modern amenity to deal with less-than-favorable circumstances, offering better image-quality than any other macro lens that has comparable amenities.
Jack
-
I see how you try to control the discussion. I do use extension on the Otus lenses, and get very good results for the most part. And I will soon give you a report on the Sigma.
I suggest you stop trying to control what is talked about here and just listen to what folks like myself are pointing out.
If you want to limit the discussion ONLY to the complete set of parameters you like, well, there won't be much of a discussion, will there? Stop scolding us and just try talking with us. I have been willing to listen to you and even go so far as purchasing a lens that my mind tells me is not going to be that useful in my work. For instance, if you intend that only 1:1 lenses are to be discussed, then that is too restrictive for me.
I would like to discuss these ideas and I have the experience, but not if you can't open up a bit. I get your point that you like this particular lens and are dedicated to wildlife photography. Having done all kinds of wildlife photography myself, since 1956, with all kinds of lenses, in all kinds of places and countries, etc., just because I also do other kinds of nature photography than you do, including studio work, I don't need a lecture from you about it.
I have written many books over many years, endlessly trying all kinds of things, many of them reported in books, blogs, videos, as I went along. Quoting stuff I said or used to believe is not helpful. I change as do you and as will you with the D810. I am here right now to discuss these things as I understand them in early 2016.
You are too desperate about all of this. We don’t all want to “nail shots” as you put it. Other views, too, are valuable to hear unless you just want to silence any view that conflicts with your own.
I suggest we drop all of this and let’s talk.
-
I think that against the wind a plamp can be more useful than AF. The challenge with the wind is not only to focus on a fast moving object, but that it can move incredibly fast after the focusing.
In good weather, when it is calm out and the Michigan wind is not blowing, I am out in the yard, in the neighborhood, in the parks, but also in the fields, streams, meadowlands, and bogs with hip boots and these lenses, albeit on a tripod.
I have no experience of the Michigan wind :), but generally, if avoiding to go out during a windy day can be wise, not always is possible, you can have only that opportunity to shoot that object (e.g. a flower before the end of the anthesis).
Avoiding shooting under the rain isn't wise, you miss interesting shots (perhaps less perfect but certainly more valuable) and intense sensations and impressions. We are made of recollections.
How about weather sealing[/b] (for those who actually venture outside the studio)?
I shoot flowers in the rain (moderate and even less moderate) with my old Elmarit 100 macro (1:1 with ELPRO, front edge of the lens hood only 7 cm to the object) and a chamois leather cloth on it without visible negative consequences. Perhaps against the rain could be more useful a front element deeply recessed in the barrel and a good lens hood.
-
I shoot flowers in the rain (moderate and even less moderate) with my old Elmarit 100 macro (1:1 with ELPRO, front edge of the lens hood only 7 cm to the object) and a chamois leather cloth on it without visible negative consequences. Perhaps against the rain could be more useful a front element deeply recessed in the barrel and a good lens hood.
I have the 100mm Leica Macro (and the Elpro), which I have converted to Nikon mount. It is one of the best corrected lenses (APO) that I know of for macro or close-up, with an incredible focus throw, something like 720 degrees.
-
"legitimate wildlife photography ... climbing mountains, traversing the desert, standing in swamps, etc."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
::)
-
Well the BBC thinks studio work is : 'editorially and ethically justified' in some circumstances.
This was a row over a birth sequence cut into ""legitimate wildlife photography" I particularly like one comment: "I'm outraged to find out the soundtrack for #FrozenPlanet was added after filming. I thought they took a full orchestra with them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950895/Frozen-Planet-Sir-David-Attenborough-denies-misleading-viewers-over-faked-polar-bear-birth.html
But they don't disclose the lens they used 8)
Knowing the BBC this link may not work in all the UK Dominions :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16137704
-
As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.
I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.
Although the lens is f/2.8, this will not be very usable except at infinity, although the lens is designed for macro work. This is due to what is called “effective aperture.” As with many lenses, the moment we focus close with the Sigma, the actual aperture jumps to f/4, not helpful for the best bokeh. I like f/2.8 or preferably better, like f/2 or f/1.2.
The lens is sharp enough when stopped down to f/4, but just a little soft wide-open. The lens has autofocus, something I seldom use in close-up photography. This lens has OS (Optical Stabilization), which means you can use it handheld, but at 3.6 lb. (1.63 kg), this is not something I would want to do too much of.
One very nice thing: it has is a detachable tripod foot/collar that is a pleasure to use, one that allows changing from horizontal to vertical format in seconds. It also helps distribute the weight on your camera mount. It does not have an aperture ring, which I don’t like, on principle. However, it does have 9 aperture blades, and good bokeh.
At 180-degrees, the lens allows me to stand back and still be close-in, which is a big help for live-critter action. It has auto-focus, which makes it helpful for fast-moving insects, etc.
Will I use this lens? Not for what I usually do. I will consider using it on a gimbal (or tripod) with its autofocus for flying insect and bird shots… perhaps. I do this now with the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR lens, which weights 1.58 lb. (720 g), works well, goes to 1:1, has 9 (rounded) blades, a minimum focus range of 12-inches (30.48 cm), and f/2.8, but has no collar or image stabilization.
This lens IMO, which is sturdy and well-built, is for the wildlife photographer who wants to capture moving critters, although it really is too heavy for that work. Most of what it does, I don’t need. What it lacks is why I use other lenses, like a longer focus throw, a bit faster, not totally sharp wide open, better “micro-contrast,” for example.
Nikon D810, Sigma 180mm APO Macro, Zerene Stacker A studio shot, yes, but it is mid-winter here.
-
As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.
I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.
With an autofocus lens, one can adjust focusing in very small and reproducible steps via software. Have you tried this approach?
Regards,
Bill
-
As promised, my impressions of this lens, which I finally received.
I am still evaluating this lens, but a brief look at the Sigma 180 APO f/2.8 DG HSM OS shows me that while this lens works well in single-shot photos, this is not true if you want to stack, especially with a many-layer stack. This is because the focus-throw is only 270 degrees, which is more than many lens made for action-shooting have, but not enough for serious stacking IMO and work. By comparison, the Voigtlander CV-125 has a focus throw of about 630-degrees and the Leica 10mm Elmarit-R has a focus throw of 720-degrees. In that case, I would have to put the Sigma 180 on a focus rail which has finer interval-gradations. However, the lens does go to 1:1, which is good.
Good morning, and thanks for taking the time to review.
If you will recall, I did not create an article about "the finest macro-stacking lens." (You had already done that.)
I created an article about the finest wildlife macro lens, a concept with which you are still struggling to keep in focus ...
Although the lens is f/2.8, this will not be very usable except at infinity, although the lens is designed for macro work. This is due to what is called “effective aperture.” As with many lenses, the moment we focus close with the Sigma, the actual aperture jumps to f/4, not helpful for the best bokeh. I like f/2.8 or preferably better, like f/2 or f/1.2.
The Sigma did not do this on my Canon (though I have noticed it does so on my Nikon, another feature I don't like about Nikon).
Regardless, the truth is f/2 is useless for wildlife macro shooting. (As you found out when trying to do so in your article.)
Wildlife photography is typically 1-image photography, where you don't want your f/stop any wider then f/4-f/5.6.
At this aperture, you will find the Sigma is equal to, or superior to, the Voightlander (with all the amenities previously-discussed).
The lens is sharp enough when stopped down to f/4, but just a little soft wide-open. The lens has autofocus, something I seldom use in close-up photography. This lens has OS (Optical Stabilization), which means you can use it handheld, but at 3.6 lb. (1.63 kg), this is not something I would want to do too much of.
One very nice thing: it has is a detachable tripod foot/collar that is a pleasure to use, one that allows changing from horizontal to vertical format in seconds. It also helps distribute the weight on your camera mount. It does not have an aperture ring, which I don’t like, on principle. However, it does have 9 aperture blades, and good bokeh.
Exactly.
If you have your camera on a tripod, and find a critter to shoot, you can instantly adjust your composition with the tripod ring, nail the focus, and trip a cable (hands-off) and obtain a razor-sharp image ... where the bokeh will be very smooth also.
At 180-degrees, the lens allows me to stand back and still be close-in, which is a big help for live-critter action. It has auto-focus, which makes it helpful for fast-moving insects, etc.
Exactly the point of my article again: wildlife macro photography.
Will I use this lens? Not for what I usually do. I will consider using it on a gimbal (or tripod) with its autofocus for flying insect and bird shots… perhaps. I do this now with the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR lens, which weights 1.58 lb. (720 g), works well, goes to 1:1, has 9 (rounded) blades, a minimum focus range of 12-inches (30.48 cm), and f/2.8, but has no collar or image stabilization.
I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be able to replace the Voightlander for studio stacks.
What I know it will do is be able to outperform the Voightlander in the field, getting shots the Voightlander would cause you to miss, and easily competing with the Voightlander in quality from f/4 to f/8, which are more wildlife-realistic macro apertures than single-shot images at f/2.
Again, this is why you yourself were yearning for the Nikon 105mm (which I rate #2), when you had the Voightlander, when you yourself were in a park trying to take 1-image photos.
This lens IMO, which is sturdy and well-built, is for the wildlife photographer who wants to capture moving critters, although it really is too heavy for that work. Most of what it does, I don’t need. What it lacks is why I use other lenses, like a longer focus throw, a bit faster, not totally sharp wide open, better “micro-contrast,” for example.
It is not heavy on a tripod :)
Also as mentioned in my article, for those who only hand-hold, the Nikon 105 might be the preferred option. For those who use a tripod, and want the reach, the Sigma hands down.
As repeated, the lens is for the wildlife macro photographer who wants every "wildlife-ready" feature available on a true 1:1 macro lens, with the excellent reach, a tripod collar for instant composition, that is also built tough, weather-sealed, etc.
The lens was not designed for the studio shooter, who wants to do multi-image stacks of immobile objects, so it is ludicrous to rate it like that (esp. on a Wildlife Macro Lens thread).
Nikon D810, Sigma 180mm APO Macro, Zerene Stacker A studio shot, yes, but it is mid-winter here.
Lovely :)
-
I created an article about the finest wildlife macro lens, a concept with which you are still struggling to keep in focus ...
COMMENT:
I have written scores of articles, and you keep quoting just one. You write like the political talking heads, very unfair.
At this aperture, you will find the Sigma is equal to, or superior to, the Voightlander (with all the amenities previously-discussed).
COMMENT: I seldom use it at that aperture, which is the whole point.
I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be able to replace the Voightlander for studio stacks.
COMMENT: Correct. We do different kind of wildlife photography in the field, not just the studio.
What I know it will do is be able to outperform the Voightlander in the field, getting shots the Voightlander would cause you to miss, and easily competing with the Voightlander in quality from f/4 to f/8, which are more wildlife-realistic macro apertures than single-shot images at f/2.
COMMENT: You assumptions are about other's ability are unreal.
Again, this is why you yourself were yearning for the Nikon 105mm (which I rate #2), when you had the Voightlander, when you yourself were in a park trying to take 1-image photos. ';
COMMENT: One incident. I have used the Voigtlander to do hundreds of thousands of photos IN THE WILD, not just in the studio.
It is not heavy on a tripod :)
COMMENT: Well the lens, camera, and tripod are indeed heavy. Try walking five miles with them.
The lens was not designed for the studio shooter, who wants to do multi-image stacks of immobile objects, so it is ludicrous to rate it like that (esp. on a Wildlife Macro Lens thread).
COMMENT: You almost always overstate your case, which lacks fairness. I suggest that you actually might try using the CV-125. I have stacked many critters in the wild.
The Sigma 180mm is an OK lens. I agree with a lot of what you say. But trying to put down other lenses, which many of us can use just fine in the wild, does nothing IMO to encourage me to use your "favorite lens." I have many lenses that I use, each a little different as to use. Now I have the Sigma 180 too, which I will use, but its sheer weight does not recommend it.
-
I'm waiting for someone to tell me about the performance of the Venus Laowa 15mm. I'm very attracted to wide-angle close-ups (if not true macro). I think that it would be a real plus for shooting flowers in the mountains.
-
I'm waiting for someone to tell me about the performance of the Venus Laowa 15mm. I'm very attracted to wide-angle close-ups (if not true macro). I think that it would be a real plus for shooting flowers in the mountains.
I love this lens. No, it is not this, that, and the other thing a lens is supposed to be, but I use it a lot. And that is what a lens is all about, use. You can push the end right up to a subject until it is all but touching. It is sharp... enough... and it photo is good enough. I have a bunch of fisheyes, but this is the one I usually use, but I am a close-up photographer. It is not expensive either. Shot with the Nikon D810.
-
Thanks Michael, your opinion is important to me. I think I would use it often, precisly because I have been missing something like it.
The focus in your photo seems to be on the second flower, am I right?
-
I have written scores of articles, and you keep quoting just one. You write like the political talking heads, very unfair.
That you've written scores of articles (having nothing to do with this exact subject) is irrelevant.
I keep quoting that article, as it's the only one you've written, directly dealing with this subject, which makes it absolutely fair.
In the article to which I refer, you admit you were under-equipped with the Voightlander in a non-studio setting (your words, your article).
Nothing could be more germane to this discussion Michael ...
COMMENT: I seldom use it at that aperture, which is the whole point.
WRONG
You keep missing the whole point: this article isn't about "you"; it's about macro lenses for wildlife photography.
Go back up to the top of the page and re-read the last line of your own article:
- "All shots with the Nikon D800E, CV-125, and an aperture perhaps at f/5.6 or lower, not enough DOF for what was needed."
Your own article reinforces everything I've said. Nobody shoots f/2.0 macro shots in the wild. Not even you.
By your own admission, "anything lower than f/5.6 is not enough."
What more do I have to do to prove my point than by using your own words in a published article?
COMMENT: Correct. We do different kind of wildlife photography in the field, not just the studio.
I have yet to see a single wildlife shot from you.
COMMENT: You assumptions are about other's ability are unreal.
Exactly backwards: your assumptions about wildlife photography are unreal.
This is why (again, in your article, quoted back up at the top of the page) you were so stumped when your prize lens failed to perform.
COMMENT: One incident. I have used the Voigtlander to do hundreds of thousands of photos IN THE WILD, not just in the studio.
Hundreds of thousands? (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
And yet all you can post are photos of common flies, bees, and plants in your garden? :o
(Along with an article admitting you were "stumped" at how to photograph a beetle in a garden setting? :o)
I don't believe you have "hundreds of thousands" of legitimate wildlife macro photos, taken with the Voightlander lens.
(I actually doubt you have a single such photo.)
My belief is that all you've ever taken with the Voightlander are shots in your studio and garden ... or, maybe, a local park.
COMMENT: Well the lens, camera, and tripod are indeed heavy. Try walking five miles with them.
I have.
I sling my tripod over my shoulder and walk.
Not a big deal.
COMMENT: You almost always overstate your case, which lacks fairness. I suggest that you actually might try using the CV-125. I have stacked many critters in the wild.
LMAO, the guy who states he has "hundreds of thousands" of wildlife macro images taken with his Voightlander 125 APO ... and yet who can only post photos of garden flowers, flies, and bees ... is accusing "me" of overstating my case (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/timeout.gif)
Thanks for the laugh, Michael (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Jack
-
LMAO, the guy who states he has "hundreds of thousands" of wildlife macro images taken with his Voightlander 125 APO ... and yet who can only post photos of garden flowers, flies, and bees ... is accusing "me" of overstating my case
Thanks for the laugh, Michael
Jack
You forget that I stack photos, sometimes 100 layers deep, so yes, hundreds of thousands of photographs. I am not going to waste any more time with you.
Here are a few wildlife photos of critters I took:
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/3/3/3339ef0cdc6ddf82/Small_Worlds_--_Sentient_Beings_Vol-1.pdf?c_id=8358140&expiration=1454551550&hwt=b8a6ad711276b5d9f971fa283e1159d4
-
I was going to leave this alone, but I am not.
So here goes:
You forget that I stack photos, sometimes 100 layers deep, so yes, hundreds of thousands of photographs.
So you're trying to say that you take 100-layer, stacked images taken of flighty subjects in the wild? (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/timeout.gif)
Whatever you say, Michael (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
I am not going to waste any more time with you.
Trust me when I tell you, my own time has been wasted as well.
This started off as a good natured thread topic, but you kept trying to digress into your own little territory, flower stacks at home, completely missing the point of the topic.
I am sorry if you feel embarrassed by "overstating" your own case, and having your own article refute everything you have said here on this thread topic.
Your entire struggle here is the simple fact that, not once, have you kept your eye on the ball and dealt with the subject: wildlife macro imagery (which, I agree, makes this entire diatribe a waste of time).
You had your own say, on your own thread topic (which I gave you the respect to leave alone), but you and your ego just could not allow another person (me) to offer another perspective, on another thread topic, dealing with another lens offering advantages (to another kind of macro shooting: wildlife) the features for which your pet studio lens simply (and utterly) lacks.
The very fact that you couldn't get results from your own pet lens, in non-controlled situations, as described in your own article, should have been silencing ... but (unfortunately) it was not :-[
Here are a few wildlife photos of critters I took:
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/3/3/3339ef0cdc6ddf82/Small_Worlds_--_Sentient_Beings_Vol-1.pdf?c_id=8358140&expiration=1454551550&hwt=b8a6ad711276b5d9f971fa283e1159d4
Of the 53 images provided in that link, I would say only 6 were semi-impressive, and (maybe) the same amount could be properly classified as wildlife imagery.
(The last 4 were your best.)
The rest appeared to be the common garden photography of a beginner.
I honestly think you have a real knack for studio-stack flower photography ... and it shows.
And I honestly still think what you call "wildlife" macro photography is actually early-morning garden photography ... that you delude yourself into thinking is something other than what it really is.
(Slugs, snails, bees, flies, garden orbs, etc.? :-\)
Jack
Also, and with no malice stated, there was a massive quality degradation in the .pdf format of your eBook. Even when I downloaded it, every single image looked like 500 px images blown up to 1920 px wide.
It would be more helpful if you would post the original, individual high-res images of those "hundreds of thousands" of 100-image wildlife macro stacks you say you have.
-
I can see that you can't resist this kind of ridiculous personal attack. Enough of you.
-
Enough of this...