No, it's not. At least in my opinion. They didn't design a 65mm f2.8 lens for normal photography* and just flip it. They specifically designed an inverted 65mm lens for above life size photography. It's not optimized for anything other than that.
I'd be very curious to see what happens if you hack the MPE 65 apart and mount it backwards. Somehow I don't think the "flipped design" will work as well as the flippant attitudes suggest.
The optical design is exactly that -- a flipped lens on tubes.
And the Zeiss Distagons (as with most SLR wide angles) are just inverted telephotos. Doesn't mean they were designed as telephoto lenses, and doesn't mean making a wide angle is as simple as designing a telephoto lens for normal photography and "flipping it around" (as you should know, since you use a reversed 28 for macro work). Nor does the presence or absence of exotic glass, radical aspherical elements, or other high profile optical tricks say anything about the effort that went into the design.
*The MPE was designed around the same time as the 100mm f2.8 Macro IF, which is ~65mm at 1:1, and I have no doubt that the design experience and lessons for those two lenses played off each other, but they are NOT the same lens--different numbers of elements, different groupings, different spacing, different aperture placement, different everything.
edit: moved this to the very end: the current 100L is 68mm at MFD, if anyone's interested
lacksative wrote:
MP-E is very rarely tack sharp in anything other than Mtf tests. Real world usage usually is with diffraction limited apertures where any lens consruction would suffice.
Yeah. Wide open at 2:1 the effective aperture is something like f8--stopping down or increasing magnification at all puts you well into the realm of diffraction damaged photography.
gpop wrote:
so back on topic, for those that have the sam/roki/...35/1.4, are there any improvements or changes you'd like to see in the 24?
Personally, I'm waiting (patiently) for autoaperture versions of the 35 and 85. I would buy them in a heartbeat. I don't know about the 24--I love my 24 TSE, but I don't know if a 1.4 would get enough use to be worthwhile.
Samyang seems to have a good R&D department. I really hope they will consider to produce a ultimate portraiture lens: a 200mm f/2... My lust for the Nikkor (even AI-S version) does not find agreement with my bank account. Also a good 20mm at f2 or f2.8 could be a very nice thing.
lacksative wrote:
Though i bet Samyang will introduce a tilt-shift lens next. There's already been a buzz about it on their facebook wall a couple months back.
obik wrote:
I'd be very curious to see what happens if you hack the MPE 65 apart and mount it backwards. Somehow I don't think the "flipped design" will work as well as the flippant attitudes suggest.
Actually if you use a 2x teleconverter on the end of the MP-E, you will be able to take photos just like it would be a normal 65mm lens. There's lot of threads about that in the macro world section. I haven't tried it on my own MP-E though.
obik wrote:
Yeah. Wide open at 2:1 the effective aperture is something like f8--stopping down or increasing magnification at all puts you well into the realm of diffraction damaged photography.edit: fixed mag typo
It actually doesn't go like this. While you are true that the effective amount of light is at f/8 or something around it when shooting 2:1 @ f/2.8, you will not be diffraction limited yet because the physical size of the aperture doesn't get as small as f/8. You just lose the light.
gpop wrote:
so back on topic, for those that have the sam/roki/...35/1.4, are there any improvements or changes you'd like to see in the 24?
I'd like to see a better aperture ring. It's a bit on the plasticky side. A better design on the lens cap would also be awesome, because mine keeps popping out from the slightest bump and i've seen this happen to other Samyang 35/1.4 users too.
Optically there's not much room for improvement and build quality - except for the aperture ring - is imo very much the same as any L-series Canon lens.
lacksative wrote:
Actually if you use a 2x teleconverter on the end of the MP-E, you will be able to take photos just like it would be a normal 65mm lens. There's lot of threads about that in the macro world section. I haven't tried it on my own MP-E though.
I'm aware of that, but that's not what I said.
It actually doesn't go like this. While you are true that the effective amount of light is at f/8 or something around it when shooting 2:1 @ f/2.8, you will not be diffraction limited yet because the physical size of the aperture doesn't get as small as f/8. You just lose the light.
That's not my (admittedly limited) understanding, and that's certainly not what Schneider say about their large format macro lenses--they explicitly state that at high magnification you should avoid stopping down as much as possible because of diffraction--saying that even wide open (f5.6) you're at a much smaller effective aperture, and they go into the normal diffraction=the worst evil imaginable spiel.
A quick google search also turns up this illustrated example from Capture integration showing the apparent aperture size of a lens with and without extension: http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/08/25/extreme-macro/ and blaming diffraction for image softness at high magnifications.
Also, my own experience at 1:1 and 2:1 shows that the when the effective aperture gets too small, the image softens, even if the aperture is still set to f5.6 or 8.
I'm sure there's someone here smarter than both of us who can step in to explain things...
skibum5 wrote:
No heavy R&D? If you look at 100% crops from it is crazy sharp at macros distances. What else is sharper?
It seems that there are enough lenses that are pretty much as sharp, but the MP-E has the advantage of having modern coatings (for better contrast), being more compact at 5:1 and having automatic aperture control. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9013
I've seen another comparison like this where the MP-E showed a bit more CA than the Leitz Focotar, but I can't find it right now.
obik wrote:
Personally, I'm waiting (patiently) for autoaperture versions of the 35 and 85. I would buy them in a heartbeat. I don't know about the 24--I love my 24 TSE, but I don't know if a 1.4 would get enough use to be worthwhile.
Go Nikon :P I think Pentax has auto-aperture as well.
Go Nikon :P I think Pentax has auto-aperture as well.
The Pentax is KA mount so you get Auto-aperture, all exposure modes and matrix metering but need to set the focal length manually. Pentax is the only current mount to have full exposure modes and metering support without a CPU due to the encoded aperture contacts in the KA mount.
I still don't understand why Samyang isn't putting a CPU and aperture lever in Sony mount lenses, that would get full function for the same investment as the 'Nikon AE' lenses they currently sell.
gpop wrote:
so back on topic, for those that have the sam/roki/...35/1.4, are there any improvements or changes you'd like to see in the 24?
Mechanically I think it's well built, not as an L but better than midprized EF lenses (Canon). Aperture ring is fine to me, but of course, why not have a metal ring to get that particular feel. In China those are grinded for a $ or so.
Lens cap could be better, it's not bad but as with some good Sigmas I owned the inner grips are not too good.
Yes the 35 may be on the big side, but it apparently has optical reasons and I wouldnt trade those qualities for anything.
To me the most odd thing with the 35/1.4 is the non-consistent light measurement using Av (on a 5DMkII body). Usually one needs to underexpose 2/3 or so, but in lesser light it goes down/up (pick your choice ;-) to 0 or even a slight overexposure. That's a bit annoying and requires a check-histo-testshot before you start with anything really. Changing metering method only seem to get things worse... But, I dont see how Samyang could do much about it since the lens has zero communication with the camera. It would have to mimic a Canon lens or so with coatings or what (?) to achieve something else I guess.
I would say the price is going to be within reach of their 35mm 1.4. I would probably get more use out of the 35mm or even 50mm than a 24mm, which I just sold for a 17mm.
wfrank wrote:
To me the most odd thing with the 35/1.4 is the non-consistent light measurement using Av (on a 5DMkII body). Usually one needs to underexpose 2/3 or so, but in lesser light it goes down/up (pick your choice ;-) to 0 or even a slight overexposure. That's a bit annoying and requires a check-histo-testshot before you start with anything really. Changing metering method only seem to get things worse... But, I dont see how Samyang could do much about it since the lens has zero communication with the camera. It would have to mimic a Canon lens or so with coatings or what (?) to achieve something else I guess....Show more →
That has to do with stop down metering most likely. The metering system isn't designed for that.
AhamB wrote:
That has to do with stop down metering most likely. The metering system isn't designed for that.
Trying to understand... could you elaborate? I am normally using the 35 pretty much wide open, shouldnt the metering then use what it sees and be more correct? Especially at 1.4?
