John Koerner Offline [X]
|
jongatmosfera wrote:
I agree. However, let's examine what constitutes "comfortable distance," because it would be simplistic and erroneous to assume that comfortable distance always means a long working distance.
I'm using a Tamron 60mm that gives 1:1 magnification at about 4" working distance, to which I've added 2 sets of extension tubes (136mm total length) to bring me to 3.5x at about 3" working distance, which is quite comfortable for me and allows me to shoot live, active, and unbaited jumping spiders, wasps, and other critters without scaring them away.
Good point.
Therefore, as the article suggests, feel free to re-interpret the factual material contained in the Data Table to suit your own personal needs.
For example, the Zeiss Milvus has the highest ranking of many attributes (resolution contrast, etc.), but I rate it #3 because it is lacking in some elements I personally want.
The working distance of the 180-200mm lenses is a big deal to me, and to be long.
If the shorter distances work for your needs, then re-arrange the hierarchy in your own personal rating system, as suggested.
The purpose of my article was both to give credit to the Sigma, as it is better than any 180-200mm option, but also to juxtapose all of the major lenses together, in one setting, so that all of us fanciers could "rub our chins" and make decisions based on 13 very important factors.
Because you work with some of the tinier arthropods, who can deal with such proximity, the lighter lenses (with shorter focal lengths/working distances) work for you.
I rate the Tamron as #2 in that capacity, right behind the Nikon 105.
You might rate it #1, because of price and weight.
jongatmosfera wrote:
Having satisfied the important element that a macro lens must not require you to be too close to a live subject to the point of scaring it away, the short (but not too short) working distance of my set-up allows me to employ Dalantech's left hand brace technique and to bring the diffuser close to the subject by positioning it above the edge of the lens. (Well, one could always position the diffuser a few inches forward from the edge of a long lens, but that would defeat the purpose of the long working distance provided by the lens.)
So yes, working distance is very important, but the working distance preferred by those who shoot at 1x or below and use only natural light may not work for those who shoot at 2x or higher and are compelled to use flash and must find a way to brace the lens on the same platform the subject is on, and vice versa....Show more →
I agree with all of this.
As mentioned, in several places in the article, as well as here on this thread: your mileage may very; important factors *to you* might cause you to re-shuffle the ratings.
The fact that the Sigma can also double as a telephoto might not be of significance to you. The fact that its stats are somewhat higher than the Tamron's might not matter, because of its weight.
There is no possible way on earth for me to create a rating system that can coincide with every single unique photographer, which is precisely why I indicate (at several points) that the reader should use the data on the table, and adjust, to fit his/her own unique way of shooting.
Jack
|