Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement
  
 
igmolinav
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement



Hi,

This is perhaps quite simple for many of you.
I think about it and I am not that sure. I tell
you a bit about it.

A medium format 50 mm. or a 50 mm. f/1.4 lens
from Zeiss has a minimum focusing distance
at 45 cm. or 50 cm. A macro lens with the
same focal length can focus as close as 25 cm.
However, in a time that many cameras come
with an excess of megapixels, is it right to say
the following:

A man uses a Nikon D800 with a 50 mm. lens,
not the macro version. He focuses as close
as posible and takes a picture with the maximum
resolution, some 36 MB. The salad plate he
photographed has quite a bit of space to the
edges. So, the edges are trimmed off. The
actual "weight" of the picture after the trimming
is approximately as big as a shot taken with a
50 mm. macro lens and 5D Mark III at maximum
resolution, some 24 MB. Would this be more
or less correct??

It means, one does not need by all means a
macro lens, one can crop off the picture (if one
has enough megapixels)!

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!





Jan 29, 2013 at 02:07 AM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


igmolinav wrote:
Hi,

This is perhaps quite simple for many of you.
I think about it and I am not that sure. I tell
you a bit about it.

A medium format 50 mm. or a 50 mm. f/1.4 lens
from Zeiss has a minimum focusing distance
at 45 cm. or 50 cm. A macro lens with the
same focal length can focus as close as 25 cm.
However, in a time that many cameras come
with an excess of megapixels, is it right to say
the following:

A man uses a Nikon D800 with a 50 mm. lens,
not the macro version. He focuses as close
as posible and takes a picture with
...Show moreI assume you mean MP as in Mega Pixels vs MB as in MegaByte.

It means, one does not need by all means a
macro lens, one can crop off the picture (if one
has enough megapixels)!

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!

It really would depend on the sharpness of the lenses in question as to how sharp each image would be, and there will be POV differences, DOF differences, and possibly resolution differences due to the optics.
So, yes, in theory you could get similar images from each, just not identical.

Cropping changes the FOV just like using a crop sensor.

Are you trying to talk yourself into or out of a new camera and or lens?



Jan 29, 2013 at 02:33 AM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Yes, you can get a more magnified/"macro" by cropping and enlarging a smaller area of an image. It's just a question of how picky you are about image quality. A dedicated macro lens will be better corrected for close-up use than, e.g., a Zeiss 50/1.4 at MFD, so you will get both more and "higher quality" (better sharpness/detail/contrast) pixels in the image of your subject. More megapixels in the camera ceases to help past the point where the resolution is limited by the lens; most non-macro 50mm lenses aren't able to fully use a 36MPx sensor at MFD.


Jan 29, 2013 at 04:49 PM
igmolinav
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Hi,

Thank you for your message : ) !!!

Yes, MP are Mega Pixels, and MB
are Mega Bytes ; ) !!!

Is POV, point of view?
What is FOV?

Are you trying to talk yourself into or out of a new camera and or lens?
I am trying to talk myself out of a 50 mm. macro lens and I am trying to talk myself into a
regular 50 mm. lens, perhaps even a medium format one. Not very sure yet. I would buy then a Nikon D800, D600, or Canon 6D. The two latter models are les than twenty five mega pixels.

Kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!






Jan 29, 2013 at 04:53 PM
ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


50mm @ 25 cm only gives you a 1:2 magnification, so it's not a true 1:1 macro lens.

Compare that to a 50 @ 45cm and that gives you a 1:6 magnification.

Basically a regular 50mm lens and cropping will not give you anything close to the same performance as a dedicated 1:1 macro lens. Tokina and Sigma both have 90/100mm macro options that are cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalent and performe beautifully.



Jan 29, 2013 at 05:15 PM
igmolinav
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Hi,

Thank you for your messages : ) !!!

@mpmendenhall - The system lagged a bit behind and it didn't show your message until i had already posted
for the first time!

Yes, you can get a more magnified/"macro" by cropping and enlarging a smaller area of an image. It's just a question of how picky you are about image quality. A dedicated macro lens will be better corrected for close-up use than, e.g., a Zeiss 50/1.4 at MFD, so you will get both more and "higher quality" (better sharpness/detail/contrast) pixels in the image of your subject. More megapixels in the camera ceases to help past the point where the resolution is limited by the lens; most non-macro 50mm lenses aren't able to fully use a 36MPx sensor at MFD. Thank you : ) !!! I didn't know that. The resolution in megapixels that a lens takes will have a limit. If I understoodd what you say, a macro lens is designed to optimize a cameras resolution more than a regular lens with its same focal length!



50mm @ 25 cm only gives you a 1:2 magnification, so it's not a true 1:1 macro lens. Compare that to a 50 @ 45cm and that gives you a 1:6 magnification. Basically a regular 50mm lens and cropping will not give you anything close to the same performance as a dedicated 1:1 macro lens. Tokina and Sigma both have 90/100mm macro options that are cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalent and performe beautifully.
Interesting point that you make! I already have a 120 mm. makro lens from Zeiss for Hasselblad V. Due to this, I thought on having a 50 or 60 mm. macro lens. But should I ?? Some people have several macro lenses with different focal lengths. For example a set of the following lenses are popular for full frame DSLRs among some photographers: 50 or 60 mm., 100 or 120 mm., and 180 or 200 mm. I'll also take a look at the lenses from Tokina and Sigma!

Kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!



Jan 29, 2013 at 08:36 PM
GCasey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


There's another factor to consider. My Canon 50/f/2.5 macro lens has a flat-field perspective.

When the lens is used to copy a document, for example, the full page will be in sharp focus, not just the center portion.

When my 50, f/1.8 lens is used to copy a document, the center will be sharp, and the edges will be soft, depending on how small an f/stop is used, due to field curvature.




Jan 29, 2013 at 08:57 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


igmolinav wrote:
I already have a 120 mm. makro lens from Zeiss for Hasselblad V. Due to this, I thought on having a 50 or 60 mm. macro lens. But should I ?


Different focal length macro lenses are useful in different situations.

Shorter focal lengths are smaller, lighter, and typically faster apertures. Combined with the shorter focal length, that makes them easier to use for natural light, hand-held shooting (shorter exposures and less impact from shaky hands). This makes ~50mm macro lenses handy for capturing details in general purpose walk-around use. On the downside, shorter focal lengths mean the subject needs to be nearer to the lens --- this isn't good for skittish subjects (e.g. butterflies), or when space is needed to set up lighting.

Longer macro lenses give more space between the lens and the subject, which helps if you're photographing something that can be scared away, or need flexibly to set up a macro flash system. On the other hand, a longer macro lens is less convenient to hand-hold (especially for available light shooting).

If you want something easier to carry around for general use, an ~50mm macro lens would be a good complement to your 120mm. If you feel like you need longer working distances (e.g. for macro shots of live insects), then a longer ~180mm macro would be the direction to go.



Jan 29, 2013 at 09:04 PM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Is POV, point of view?
What is FOV?

Yes, Point Of View & Field Of View

As another method of thinking, a 50mm macro and a 50mm normal with extension tubes could possibly be used interchangeably, ie. they could both be used for portrait & landscape or for closeup & macro use, it's just that one may be better optimized for a purpose than the other, I've used my EF 85/1.2L with extension tubes, and it worked great, I've also used tubes on my Rokkor 58/1.2, and I loved it, I've also used my 50 macro's as landscape lenses, they work just fine, but some may lose a bit when shooting near infinity.

But typically Macro lenses are well corrected and better suited for the purpose, so I guess you have to ask yourself, what will your main use for the lens be?



Jan 29, 2013 at 10:21 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


'More megapixels in the camera ceases to help past the point where the resolution is limited by the lens'

If by 'help' you mean 'improve image quality as measured by the accepted measure of MTF', then with respect, I believe this is incorrect; this issue was the subject addressed by Zeiss guru Dr H Nasse in a white paper a year or two back.

I mention this because (i) it is relevant to the conversation topic here, and (ii) it is deep-seated and (unfortunately) intuitive myth perpetuated and believed with religious zeal.

There are new easily influenced souls entering photography each day so it is timely to make the point afresh every so often.

Here is the explanation:

'The reason for an overly pessimistic view is the *misconception that only the
resolution limit of the system determines the image quality and that it is identical to the resolution of the weakest link of this chain. This is not the case, though, since the curves are multiplied*...'

Emphasis is mine. Lens quality times sensor resolution equals total image quality. Increase either = better IQ. (with caveats re noise, extraneous factors)

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf
- from p24.

In a way, this elegant presentation is the purpose of all the paper, and it is recommended reading for all with an interest in the matter. As H. L. Mencken once famously said:

'For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.'




Jan 29, 2013 at 10:35 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


philip_pj wrote:
'More megapixels in the camera ceases to help past the point where the resolution is limited by the lens'

If by 'help' you mean 'improve image quality as measured by the accepted measure of MTF', then with respect, I believe this is incorrect; this issue was the subject addressed by Zeiss guru Dr H Nasse in a white paper a year or two back.


I agree, you're technically correct. Especially if one is comparing a lens and sensor with somewhat similar resolutions, the camera sensor can still help even if the lens is slightly "behind." However, there are steeply diminishing marginal returns, and still the hard limit of lens resolution, once the sensor is solidly ahead of the lens' resolving power. In the case of "regular" 50mm lenses being used near MFD this is typically the case --- the lens' resolving power is badly outclassed by the sensor (even with <36MPx models). While there is not "nothing" to gain, there is extremely little --- versus large improvements possible by using a macro lens, better optimized for short distance work, on a more modest sensor.



Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43 PM
eosfun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


First, I am not sure if I understand your concept of macro right. A salad plate in my book is not a real macro subject. It might be a close focus subject, unless you want to shoot details from the salad like the structure of salad leaves of micro organism in the salad Seriously I believe a normal 50 mm will do a salad plate I guess. So I guess you mean some closer and real 1:1 or maybe 1:2 image size, about that.

Anyway, you mentioned you want to talk yourself into or out of some gear We like that

Assuming you want real macro, and a normal lens. And you want it for "free" Here are the tips and tricks:

If you want a normal lens and good macro performance too, "trick number one" to have it all is this. When you reverse your 50 mm the lens performance for macro improves significantly. A "normal" 50 mm lens, often with optimum correction at 50x the focal length, for most lens designs gets it's optimum correction at around 1x the focal length when the lens is reversed. This is well known among macro photographers and reverse rings are a cheap addition to your photokit. There are a few hurdles to be taken, like setting the aperture, having a hood over the mount, and working distance which is getting small anyway. But the "trick" really works.

Tip number two is one of my favorite solution I often recommend to macro lovers: use a bellows with an enlarger lens. These enlarger lenses are macro gems by the nature of their design and can be bought for almost nothing since darkroom processing is not popular anymore. A great EL-Nikkor, Rodenstock Rodagon or Schneider Componon is hard to beat by even the most expensive macro glass from Nikon, Sigma or Tamron. I bet you can buy a bellows and enlarger lens at a price below 50$. At the Dutch version of e-bay the like new enlarger lenses go for 15 euro and a bellows in good condition for 30 euro at the moment. A medium format enlarger lens (80mm-105mm) gives you the advantage of some more working distance, but they are harder to find than 50mm EL lenses.

In my opinion if you want high image quality macro it doesn't have to be very expensive, unless you insist to have autofocus. I would rather spend the money on a great normal AF lenses for generic purposes and have a manual focus macro setup with top quality imaging at a bargain price. You could spend the money you save on one of those great camerabodies you mentioned. No need for cropping, enlarging or digital zooming like you assumed in the OP.

Have macro fun!



Jan 29, 2013 at 11:18 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Igmolinav, I think you have to be more clear about your goals - both for your own sake, and for the sake of people trying to give you an answer (to an unknown, or at least uncertain question formulation).

My own 2 cents:
Macro lenses are often slower to focus. Since you mention a HB120mm lens (fully manual) I guess this isn't a problem for you, but still - AF is sometimes good to have.
Macro lenses often give better results at medium apertures and close distances [than "normal" lenses]

If a salad plate is your idea of "macro", then you're good with either solution. Nikkor 50mm lenses have about 1:7 magnification, meaning that a D800 or a D600 will be able to focus on something 25cm (10") wide. Slightly less than a normal A4 paper.

If focus speed isn't a problem, and you don't need F1.4, then maybe a 60mm macro would be your best solution. It's slightly bigger/longer though, and "just" F2.8. The Sigma 50F2.8 macro is a real killer regarding optical quality too, and cheaper. But the AF isn't really any good.

Comparing the D800 to a ~20MP camera is rather easy, you just need to know the width resolution and compare them. D800 = 7360 pixels, 5Dmk3 = 5760 pixels.
7360 / 5760 = 1.28
So, assuming the lens is good enough, you can get about 1.3x more image magnification with the D800. This isn't very much, and can never substitute a real macro lens - if that's what you need.



Jan 29, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


ryankarr wrote:
50mm @ 25 cm only gives you a 1:2 magnification

Compare that to a 50 @ 45cm and that gives you a 1:6 magnification.


There is something wrong with your math - or you use an unconventional definition of subject distance.



Jan 31, 2013 at 05:42 PM
igmolinav
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Hi,

Thank you again for your posts : ) !!!

I'll be writing a bit in a moment with
regard to the last posts you left in
this thread.

Kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!



Feb 28, 2013 at 03:44 PM
igmolinav
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Thank you for the following comments you made after my last two posts:

From GCasey: "When the lens is used to copy a document, for example, the full page will be in sharp focus, not just the center portion."

From mpmendenhall: "Different focal length macro lenses are useful in different situations."

From LightShow: "Yes, Point Of View & Field Of View. As another method of thinking, a 50mm macro and a 50mm normal with extension tubes."

From philip_pj: "'More megapixels in the camera ceases to help past the point where the resolution is limited by the lens'"

From the suede: "So, assuming the lens is good enough, you can get about 1.3x more image magnification with the D800. This isn't very much, and can never substitute a real macro lens - if that's what you need."


From eosfun: "In my opinion if you want high image quality macro it doesn't have to be very expensive, unless you insist to have autofocus. I would rather spend the money on a great normal AF lenses for generic purposes and have a manual focus macro setup with top quality imaging at a bargain price."
ARe there any limitations as to focusing distance with it? What kind of bellows would I need to use? Is there a link from the internet or other source wher you may have seen some info with regard to it?


With regard to a Hasselblad 50 mm. that I may get. The purpose here is a double one. I still have a Hassy.
Looking at a review about this lens in Photo.net, I left the following message here:
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00B98W?start=10
Of course you can read that thread from the very beginning here:
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00B98W?start=0


Thank you again, kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!





Feb 28, 2013 at 03:55 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


You get about 1:6 with a 50mm non macro lens. So if you wanted 1:2 you would only have 1/9 the image area if you cropped. 6/2=3. 3x3=9

So no, you can't get the same with cropping.

I used to use a close up screw in filter, a +4 and +2 dioptre. Good iq but i much prefer a macro lens the vast majority of the time. I don't like having to remove the
filter when subject distance changes.

My om 50/1.4 improves by 2.8 in the corners so flat field macro seems unnecessary at 3.5.

The 50/3.5 om is very good if it works with your camera. Do you want fast aperture?



Mar 01, 2013 at 04:09 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Regular 50 mm. lens goes macro - Please correct my statement


Mf Nikkors were under $100 I think they will work with your camera. You would generally use bellows if you needed to get closer than that.

When a lens focuses closer, it just moves further from the film or sensor. You get the lens further from film/ sensorwith extension tubes, bellows, or buy a macro lens that has a mount that moves the lens further from sensor.

The dioptres bend light instead of moving lens out to focus closer you lose no light like with macro lens. You have to stop down the inexpensive single element ones. They tend to be hazy wide open.



Mar 01, 2013 at 04:21 PM





FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password