Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)  (Read 42816 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2016, 11:47:34 pm »

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

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2016, 02:42:35 am »

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

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2016, 06:38:44 am »

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:


Sony 90/28G FE:


Bokeh crops:
Macro Planar 120/4 P45+


Sony 90/2.8G FE:


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
 

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2016, 08:35:19 am »

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.
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 #84 on: January 21, 2016, 10:50:46 am »

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, 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
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2016, 11:02:13 am »

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
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2016, 11:04:22 am »

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.
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 #87 on: January 21, 2016, 11:38:32 am »

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 :)
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2016, 01:23:17 pm »

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
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2016, 02:06:12 pm »

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
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2016, 02:16:55 pm »

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

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #91 on: January 21, 2016, 02:38:50 pm »

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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #92 on: January 21, 2016, 04:51:45 pm »

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

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

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:



Here is another:







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:







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:



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.
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #93 on: January 21, 2016, 05:07:17 pm »

John: I have spent a good amount of time in southern Florida, in the Everglades. Where were you located?
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 #94 on: January 21, 2016, 05:11:27 pm »

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,
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2016, 05:14:39 pm »

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

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #96 on: January 21, 2016, 05:42:24 pm »

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.
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 #97 on: January 21, 2016, 05:51:30 pm »

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)
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #98 on: January 21, 2016, 06:45:16 pm »

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 on the species, with some no-quality photos I got with a point-and-shoot ... but I also have Personal Images 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.

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
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 06:51:06 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

jng

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Macro Lens Comparison
« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2016, 09:48:16 pm »

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.



Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up