p.4 #1 · Does anyone make a good compact Macro 1:1 lens?
Yeah, I wish NEX had a decent 90mm FL Macro.
So some small news, I just got my first freelance commission to shoot watches.
I'll be doing on site (probably some sort of museum) shoot with my NEX-7 and Alpha A850. I plan to use the 24-70mm on the A850 which has been very good for me in doing environmental watch photography. That is, no dial close ups. But I would like to be able to add some macro stuff in there as well so I was thinking the NEX-7 would be my companion camera running off the same remote strobes.
If I have the Tamron 90mm, it gives me greater than 1:1 reproduction on the NEX-7, uses the sweet spot of the lens, and if the NEX-7 fails, I can just mount the lens on the A850 and I'm still good to go. The greater working range will probably help in strobe placement flexibility.
But the Olympus 50mm Macro F3.5 OM looks like it weighs about half the weight and even with the adapter is really very compact. It will get me nearly 1:1. I would also save about $200 which means I can get the NEX 50mm F1.8 OSS NEX or the 24mm Zeiss F1.8 for my other shooting.
A decent macro lens that is compact would be great for me as well for other uses.
p.4 #2 · Does anyone make a good compact Macro 1:1 lens?
FlyPenFly wrote:
If I have the Tamron 90mm, it gives me greater than 1:1 reproduction on the NEX-7
No, 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of sensor size. 1cm on the sensor = 1cm of the object. With a smaller sensor you need a lower reproduction ratio to make an object fill the frame, that's all.
If I'm not mistaken, to get the same coverage as 1:1 on FF with 1.5x crop, you'll need a RR of 1:1.5.
p.4 #4 · Does anyone make a good compact Macro 1:1 lens?
You will get about 2/3 stop more DOF for the same framing and same aperture on Micro 4/3 over APS-C. (so, f/6.3 vs f/8). You will get 2 stops more DOF for the same framing and aperture than full frame. (m4/3 is a 1.33x crop factor over Sony APS-C (1.25x over Canon APS-C), so you can multiply m4/3 apertures by 1.33 to get the aperture required for the same framing to yield the equivalent DOF on APS-C).
As far as magnification, 1:1 is 1:1...so setting the OM 50/3.5 to 1:2 (its MFD) will have the same magnification on both m4/3 and APS-C...but the m4/3 shot will be a tighter shot. (will appear to be magnifying more).
Since the micro 4/3 sensor is 18mm across, shooting a 38mm wide watch face will need slightly less than 1:2 magnification on micro 4/3 to fill the frame (1:2.1 to be exact). So the OM 50/3.5 would be able to accomplish that without any cropping whatsoever.
To frame the same shot on APS-C,which has a 23.4mm wide sensor, you'd need to have a lens that can shoot at 1:1.6, so you'd need to crop the APS-C shot a little at the 50/3.5 macro's minimum focus distance.
These are to fill the frame width with the watch face. To fit the whole watch dial in the frame, though, would require the shorter dimension (12mm on 4/3, 15.6mm on NEX), and so would require 1:3.1 on m4/3 and 1:2.4 on NEX....both within the range of the 50/3.5.
p.4 #5 · Does anyone make a good compact Macro 1:1 lens?
Thanks for the info. Helped me make my decision. I've been sorely tempted by the new Olympus OM-D and a Leica 45mm F2.8 seemed perfect but I think that would just be wasteful at this point with my NEX-7.
I ended up ordering the Tamron 90mm SP di F2.8 1:1 for Sony mount.
I was comparing measurements and it seems the Minolta or Sony 50mm F2.8 which is 1:1 isn't that much bigger than the Olympus 50mm F3.5 so I think that might be a better choice because of my mounts when I decide I need a smaller lens.
The Zeiss F2 50mm Makro Zf.2 is also a consideration....
