p.2 #1 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
My issue with the 90mm over the 55mm is that it is such a long focal length. That makes things very tough on the paintings I have shot that could be 4' x 6'. The distance is tough. It took away my ability to control the light adequately. But the OP may have space that I did not.
Stoffer wrote:
I would still be surprised if the Sony 90mm Macro can't outresolve the 24 MP sensor in the A7III. The copy of that lens has to be pretty terrible for that to be the case, right? Or what am I missing here?
p.2 #2 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Macro lenses will generally be the best option, they usually have better corners, a flatter field and better correction than standard lenses.
So I'm surprised to hear the 90 didn't do it for you, must have been a dud.
Apr 01, 2019 at 03:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #3 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Arty73 wrote:
I have to photograph Art drawings for reproduction, which lens for studio set up, two big softbox, A7III.
Drawings are 50x65 cm.
Done it before with sony 90mm macro, looking for better results between f8- f13. Thinking of Zeiss planar 50mm f1.4 or Sony GM 85mm f1.4. (i will rent first)
Any advice is welcome.
Friends of mine painting and selling prints, 35-70/2.8 nikkor supposed to be good IIRC? According to him, anyway. I think he tried 24-120 or something and didn't like. 50/1.8 AI seemed really good to me still at f/16, on crop, anyway, for nature
If you are stopping to f/13, you might look at older lenses. My 80-200/2.8 Tamron adaptall-2 is sharp at f/22 & maybe even 32. Have a poster size from 70-210/4 MD on film at f/32.
Most newer lenses seem to max out at 5.6. I think my 180 Tamron, 11-16, and maybe even 18-55 canon do. If they don't perform wide open get killed on the mtf testing and nobody is going to buy them imo. Older 50mm probably more f/8-11.
p.2 #4 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
For years in many print making shops the standard for this kind of work was the Nikon 60mm 2.8D micro. I have the D version, but the newer version I have heard is even better. Nikon even lists this kind of copy work as one of the uses for the lens. With an inexpensive manual adapter it works just as well on a Sony camera. Super sharp, flat, very low distortion, with excellent color fidelity. The D version is often to be found on ebay for less than $200. Even though I am a Sony shooter now, I will always keep a copy of this lens.
p.2 #5 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
FF sensor with moderate telephoto is my standard tabletop setup, and I stop down to f/18 or more to eliminate moire (a particular bugaboo with fabric or anything with pixel-level pattern). After capturing the true image, I sharpen to match the output size. Diffraction is a handy optical phenomenon, especially since sensor AA filters are never strong enough.
p.2 #6 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
According to TheDigitalPicture dot com, the A7III is diffraction limited beyond f/9.6. So you should only shoot at a smaller aperture if you need the depth of field.
It's my understanding that the 90mm macro is about as sharp a lens as you can get. At f/8 it should be amazing. If you're not getting great results with it, something else is wrong.
p.2 #7 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Arty73 wrote:
I have to photograph Art drawings for reproduction, which lens for studio set up, two big softbox, A7III.
Drawings are 50x65 cm.
Done it before with sony 90mm macro, looking for better results between f8- f13. Thinking of Zeiss planar 50mm f1.4 or Sony GM 85mm f1.4. (i will rent first)
Any advice is welcome.
As you are in a studio, the main source of error, alignment, is ruled out.
f 8-13 ought give worse results than f5.6 due to diffraction.
But you say that you have tried f5.6?
While there might (or might not) be better lenses than the Sony at the reproduction ratio you need, on a good copy of the Sony you wouldn't be able to tell.
The options you consider (Zeiss 1.4, GM 85) will be a little worse at closer distances. (but still fine).
So if you are absolutely sure there no process error (I know people get sick of being told they must have made an error, but so many people post who are sure they haven't but have. But then how do we know?) then the most likely problem is copy variation and you have a bad copy of the Sony. The first copy I tried was consistently blurry on one side, even stopped down. My third copy was absolutely world class from life size to about the magnifications you want, and very good at longer distances.
Apr 01, 2019 at 06:48 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #8 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Here's the MP numbers of the 80-200/2.8 adaptall-2 I mentioned above in this review:
Look at f/8 vs. f/16 @ 200mm. I doubt you will see a difference between 63lp/mm & 56lp/mm. I've used use it up close, and often with a tube, which is probably different, but that's about my experience. Falls off a bit from f/8 but it didn't seem like a lot. Wide open was bad, though.
p.2 #9 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Thats why Im interested in the 50mm vocal lenght,
although space is not the problem.
TheEmrys wrote:
My issue with the 90mm over the 55mm is that it is such a long focal length. That makes things very tough on the paintings I have shot that could be 4' x 6'. The distance is tough. It took away my ability to control the light adequately. But the OP may have space that I did not.
p.2 #10 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
have had the D810 but never shoot with de 60mm, great tip!
1bwana1 wrote:
For years in many print making shops the standard for this kind of work was the Nikon 60mm 2.8D micro. I have the D version, but the newer version I have heard is even better. Nikon even lists this kind of copy work as one of the uses for the lens. With an inexpensive manual adapter it works just as well on a Sony camera. Super sharp, flat, very low distortion, with excellent color fidelity. The D version is often to be found on ebay for less than $200. Even though I am a Sony shooter now, I will always keep a copy of this lens....Show more →
p.2 #11 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
I would give the Minolta MD 50/3.5 macro a try. It is around $50. Works almost as well as the 55/1.8. I shoot them both around f/4 as they are both quite sharp at wider apertures. I doubt the Minolta 50/3.5 would hold up at 36 or 42mp, but at 24mm it is quite good.
Arty73 wrote:
Thats why Im interested in the 50mm vocal lenght,
although space is not the problem.
p.2 #13 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Stoffer wrote:
I would still be surprised if the Sony 90mm Macro can't outresolve the 24 MP sensor in the A7III. The copy of that lens has to be pretty terrible for that to be the case, right? Or what am I missing here?
With all respect, what you are missing is System MTF = Lens MTF X camera MTF. (You can substitute resolution or sharpness for MTF if you like.) The key thing it's multiplicative. Basically unless you use a bottle for a lens or a 2 Megapixel camera, where one or the other is near zero, there is no "outresolve".
You can measure them scientifically (a made-up 'megapixels of resolution number' is not science, it's marketing). So if camera measures 0.6 and lens 0.8, then system measures 0.48, which would be reasonable. Make the camera 0.9 or 0.4 and system measures 0.54 or 0.24. There is no point where the lens 'outresolves' the sensor.
Similarly, if you keep the same camera and put on a better lens the numbers change but there's no point (in the range of anything reasonable) where one stops having any effect on the other.
What it does tell you is your improvement is greatest when you improve the weaker point, camera or lens. Also tells you that improving your camera makes every one of your lenses better, even your 'not best' lenses. (That doesn't mean you need a new camera; that decision is more about how you print and what you shoot.)
There may be some cheap kit zooms or decentered lenses out there that are bad enough to not show improvement with a better camera, but nothing short of that would meet the 'can't notice change in your images' criteria. Similarly, unless you're literally down around 12 megapixel full-frame cameras, a better lens will be noticeably better in your images.
p.2 #14 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
rico wrote:
If the Sony 90 macro isn't sharp enough, OP has procedural problems that a new lens cannot fix. I specialize in studio tabletop and my priorities, in order, are lighting, camera support and the lens. Xenon flash is essential to prevent any motion blur and generates perfect full-spectrum light. A geared head is really useful for attaining a normal angle onto flat art. Sharpness is easily obtained with modern lenses (even non macro) but many suffer linear distortion which remains after stopping down and can be a pain to correct in post. Example below used studio strobes, Manfrotto 410 head, Canon TS-E 135/4L Macro:
Number 1: You want a lens with great sharpness/resolution, but most important is a lens with a flat field -- that's what macro is all about in the repro world. The Zeiss 50/1.4 in all its variations from Contax up to the MIlvus will not be satisfactory for flat artwork.
Number 2: Tilt/shift lenses help a lot -- the Canon original (1991) 90/2.8 TSE comes to mind as the poor man's choice over the amazing new 135 TSE.
Number 3: If you have correct alignment and lighting, you shouldn't need more than f/5.6-8.0 for flat artwork repro. My rule of thumb is to use any aperture between those two settings.
I get great results with careful alignment of camera-lens-artwork using Canon 100/2.8L Macro, so your Sony 90 Macro should work fine, unless it has a problem. You can test to see if it does have any problems -- doesn't sound like you have identified any technical defects until now.
p.2 #15 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
RCicala wrote:
With all respect, what you are missing is System MTF = Lens MTF X camera MTF. (You can substitute resolution or sharpness for MTF if you like.) The key thing it's multiplicative. Basically unless you use a bottle for a lens or a 2 Megapixel camera, where one or the other is near zero, there is no "outresolve".
....
I am sooooooo glad that you posted this. I had no idea. I've read this "outresolve sensor" in so many places, and it is such an prevalent meme in the imaging talk-o-sphere, that I had unquestioningly accepted it as a valid concept. Thanks for clearing away this superstition.
p.2 #17 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
NJPhotographer wrote:
According to TheDigitalPicture dot com, the A7III is diffraction limited beyond f/9.6. So you should only shoot at a smaller aperture if you need the depth of field.
It's my understanding that the 90mm macro is about as sharp a lens as you can get. At f/8 it should be amazing. If you're not getting great results with it, something else is wrong.
Absolutely new for me, always tought lenses are limited, not the sensor.
p.2 #18 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
RCicala wrote:
With all respect, what you are missing is System MTF = Lens MTF X camera MTF. (You can substitute resolution or sharpness for MTF if you like.) The key thing it's multiplicative. Basically unless you use a bottle for a lens or a 2 Megapixel camera, where one or the other is near zero, there is no "outresolve".
You can measure them scientifically (a made-up 'megapixels of resolution number' is not science, it's marketing). So if camera measures 0.6 and lens 0.8, then system measures 0.48, which would be reasonable. Make the camera 0.9 or 0.4 and system measures 0.54 or 0.24. There is no point where the lens 'outresolves' the sensor.
Similarly, if you keep the same camera and put on a better lens the numbers change but there's no point (in the range of anything reasonable) where one stops having any effect on the other.
What it does tell you is your improvement is greatest when you improve the weaker point, camera or lens. Also tells you that improving your camera makes every one of your lenses better, even your 'not best' lenses. (That doesn't mean you need a new camera; that decision is more about how you print and what you shoot.)
There may be some cheap kit zooms or decentered lenses out there that are bad enough to not show improvement with a better camera, but nothing short of that would meet the 'can't notice change in your images' criteria. Similarly, unless you're literally down around 12 megapixel full-frame cameras, a better lens will be noticeably better in your images.
p.2 #19 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
Gunzorro wrote:
Rico knows what he's talking about!
Number 1: You want a lens with great sharpness/resolution, but most important is a lens with a flat field -- that's what macro is all about in the repro world. The Zeiss 50/1.4 in all its variations from Contax up to the MIlvus will not be satisfactory for flat artwork.
Number 2: Tilt/shift lenses help a lot -- the Canon original (1991) 90/2.8 TSE comes to mind as the poor man's choice over the amazing new 135 TSE.
Number 3: If you have correct alignment and lighting, you shouldn't need more than f/5.6-8.0 for flat artwork repro. My rule of thumb is to use any aperture between those two settings.
I get great results with careful alignment of camera-lens-artwork using Canon 100/2.8L Macro, so your Sony 90 Macro should work fine, unless it has a problem. You can test to see if it does have any problems -- doesn't sound like you have identified any technical defects until now.
p.2 #20 · which lens for Art reproduction photography
LightShow wrote:
Macro lenses will generally be the best option, they usually have better corners, a flatter field and better correction than standard lenses.
So I'm surprised to hear the 90 didn't do it for you, must have been a dud.
was renting the 90mm, I will ask if they had another copy to try, or it was me who made a mistake.
