Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)  (Read 42442 times)

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2016, 05:04:01 am »

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/

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #101 on: January 23, 2016, 08:01:15 am »

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?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #102 on: January 23, 2016, 11:39:06 am »

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):


Notice the working distance. I can only get so close to this thing before it takes off. The 180mm alows for this.


Here is the shot. Maybe not the best, but it was the best I could do before it took off.


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.


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.)


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.)


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

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

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

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

Again, the premise of my article (outlined on page 1 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
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 12:29:07 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #103 on: January 23, 2016, 11:50:44 am »

In fact, I would like to point out that, on p. 44 of Mr. Erlewine's own Macro eBook, 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
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #104 on: January 23, 2016, 12:58:09 pm »

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.”
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #105 on: January 23, 2016, 03:29:41 pm »

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.

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).
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #106 on: January 23, 2016, 03:35:57 pm »

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.

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...
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #107 on: January 23, 2016, 04:10:48 pm »

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...
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2016, 04:49:36 pm »

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.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2016, 05:30:44 pm »

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"

But that would put me to sleep quite frankly

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:









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"



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.

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

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

Jack
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 05:39:47 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #110 on: January 23, 2016, 06:01:22 pm »

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.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2016, 06:01:30 pm »

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
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #112 on: January 23, 2016, 08:53:59 pm »

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 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, 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

Jack
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #113 on: January 24, 2016, 12:23:59 am »

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

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #114 on: January 24, 2016, 01:07:07 am »

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.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Robert DeCandido PhD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
    • http://www.BirdingBob.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #115 on: January 24, 2016, 08:25:58 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 08:33:24 pm by Robert DeCandido PhD »
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #116 on: January 26, 2016, 08:15:05 pm »

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.

Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #117 on: January 27, 2016, 11:35:12 am »

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
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #118 on: January 27, 2016, 11:43:41 am »

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
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #119 on: January 27, 2016, 12:32:19 pm »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up