After playing around with the Sony 28-70/2 + extension tubes, I've discovered that I'd really like a wide-angle macro lens. Stopped down, the zoom gives ok results but working distance with a 16mm extension tube is around 3cm and even then it only manages 1:1.7 magnification...more would be nice. Additionally, the minimum magnification setting is 1:4.4. Much better than a prime lens on extension tubes but still difficult to work with.
This led me to look for more suitable options. And from what I've found, the best option seems to be the Pentax DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro.
Actually an APS-C lens but one that not only covers FF at close distances but also looks like it's performing quite well.
However, it needs a looong adapter, spoiling the look and its small size, and doesn't even have an aperture ring (not as much of an issue as you'd think).
See this: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/hd-pentax-da-35mm-f2-8-macro-ltd-quick-review/ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/323290-da35-2-8-macro-limited-k-1-a.html https://diglloyd.com/blog/2016/20160524_1236-PentaxK1-Pentax35f2_8-aseries-map.html
So before I go out and buy a Pentax lens for my Nikon camera that needs a special adapter just to work, that I'd combine with my Sony adapter to get EXIF data and focus confirmation, I wanted to ask you guys if you knew a better option.
The lens should preferably allow 1:1, but at least go to 1:2 - if it only does 1:2, it better be stellar. A magnification scale would be nice. Build is very important to me. I'd rather have a heavy metal lens than a lighter composite lens. AF is nice but not a necessity. Lens speed isn't that important but it shouldn't be slower than f/4. Round aperture blades are preferred.
As for my use case: I've got everything covered except a wide angle macro. This means I doubt I'd use it for anything else than close-up shooting. Macro lenses are pretty slow anyways. I'd mostly use it as a walk-around lens and capture whatever I think would look interesting, probably plants and critters.
Since this lens doesn't fit in my kit, I'd prefer it to take up as little space as possible.
I have the Megadap ETZ21 Pro+, Nikon FTZ II and Hawk's Factory Leica M to Sony E helicoid (+5mm) adapters.
Don't suggest lenses that are much wider than 28mm or much longer than 35mm - I already have the Viltrox 14/4 and Voigtländer 110/2.5.
Other options I've found but that didn't convince me:
- Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2
Adapts easily but only goes to 1:2, way too chunky for what it is, strong field curvature at MFD.
- Sigma 24mm F3.5 DG DN
Adapts easily, great build, very compact. But only goes to 1:2, has massive field curvature at MFD and little working distance.
- Voigtländer Macro APO-Ultron 35mm F2.0
Native lens, great build. But only goes to 1:2 and no info to be found on how good it covers FF.
- Laowa Sword 35mm T2.9 1x Macro
True 1:1, covers FF...but big and expensive (~2000€)
- Laowa/ AstriHori Probe lenses
Available natively, true macro lenses and definitely fun but too specialized (and expensive) for my use case.
- Allegedly, LLL will release a 35mm f/2 APO for Leica M mount, featuring a 0.3m MFD. Not bad, but even with the helicoid adapter, it would only reach 1:3.3.
- Voigtländer 28mm 2.8 SL IIs Color-Skopar - This is the only other option right now I'm concidering
Adapts natively, great build, very compact. Only goes to 1:2.4 natively though if you combine that with Kipon's helicoid adapter, you get 12mm of extension, resulting in 1:1.2. Since it's not designed as a macro lens, IQ may suck. With a helicoid adapter, data transfer would be lost and replaced by fake EXIFs. https://www.kipon-global.com/product-page/macro-adapter-for-nikon-f-lens-on-sony-e-mount-camera
Some of your wants are not really possible. Using a wide angle in macro range equals very small working distance. The Laowa sword Cine macro you mentioned will also be under 3cm to the lens front as well at 1:1. You may have seen there are some specialized long “tube” macro lenses that look like sticks that can be inserted close up without blocking all ambient light.
The wide angle macro exaggerates your subject by being so close that the surroundings are shown for context but shrink in comparison. Anything that gives you more working distance would be doing so by increasing the effective focal length defeating the purpose of using the wide angle to give you the different perspective.
Have a look at the Nikkor AI-S 28/2.8 (8 elements/8 groups; the latest MF version)); at the minimum working distance (0.2 m) it allows 1:3.9 (0.26X) magnification. It has CRC design, i.e., floating elements to ensure good performance at close distances. With the Nikon PK-12 extension tube you get a magnification slightly larger than 1:2.
Both the lens and the ext. tube are available in the 2nd hand market.
@jpelt78
I was referring to the difference between a 24 and a 35mm lens. In absolute terms, working distance is very short for both.
Your remark about perspective is very much true. For the best effect, I'd prefer a very wide lens (say 14mm macro) but they are so difficult to work with (lens touching the subject) that something around 35mm seems to be a more useable compromise.
@Ripolini
Funny you mention the Sigma 28/1.8: back when I had a Pentax (APS-C), this was my do-it-all lens. This very lens is to blame for my ongoing quest for a relatively fast and close-focusing 40-ish mm lens.
Anyways, it doesn't fit my criteria on FF. Too big, too heavy, optically too weak, and MF is horrible. Sigma has improved massively since then.
The Tokina lens you mentioned is the Pentax 35/2.8...without Pentax' coatings, the classy looking housing and useable MF.
I have to admit that my answer is only half serious . I used an empirical testing approach to meet as many of your criteria as possible and this is my best result so far:
Camera: Nikon Z7; Lens: 35mm FF equivalent, excellent build quality, distance scale, manual focus, electronic aperture communication; focus confirmation (green box); Widest aperture: f2.8: Working aperture for this image: f8; Distance from lens front: 2.5 cm; resulting image area: around 4cm x 3cm; Sharp from corner to corner, even wide open; no curvature of field; no distortion
Sorry misunderstood a bit. I would second the 28mm f2.8 AIS as one to try out. You can also mount it reversed with a BR-2 adapter to do ultra macro.
Have you played with fisheyes close up. The Nikon 8-15 gets to 1:2.9 (.34x) not quite in the 0.5 to life size range but would really exaggerate perspective. I haven’t tried to see if I can get away with a small extension tube behind it. Might end up with the focal point inside the front element.
@Ulff
I would have guessed an enlarger lens but with a variable aperture? Some MFT macro lens?
@jpelt78
I've revisited my old Samyang 8mm F3.5 Fisheye lens and the Laowa 15/2: with a 10mm extension tube, the Fisheye becomes unable to focus, the Laowa achieves between 1:1.6 and 1:1.2 but with a working distance below 1 cm and results so mushy they're unuseable.
Out of interested, I checked the market for the Nikon 8-15mm. Used prices seem to be around 1000€. Yeah...no.
Your guess goes in the wrong direction: for this application I used a 50mm maco lens (native 1:2) with shift capabilities. Merging 2 images fully shifted together effectively doubles the sensor size, resulting in a FOV identical to a 35mm lens on full frame. Shifting a lens is similar to panoramic techniques, but in case of macro applications it has the more important advantage, that no additional curvature of field is induced, and the resulting image projection is planar out of the box. To achieve a magnification better than 1:1, I added a 36mm extension tube. To calculate the exact magnification ratio you have to take into account the virtual new sensor size of about 48x36mm. Therefore, the above image with a size of about 40x30mm size has a larger magnification than 1:1. The result is technically almost perfect.
The only two problems with my solution (and the reason why I labeled it only half serious) are the obviously rather impractical size and that the solution is not exactly cheap. Here's an image of the setting I used:
The image above was taken with a Ricoh GR3x, btw. This camera also has a nice macro mode (focussing down to 0,12m) with a 40mm equivalent FOV. Doesn't meet your criteria regarding magnification (and I haven't tested it for sharpness), but it's very handy for an occasional wide angle macro. The same is true for the GR3.
Oh, shifting! Sneaky!
Not quite what I was looking for (despite being so extremely portable and perfect for handheld shooting) but the result is convincing.
I searched again for the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. Without success. All I can find are collectors' lenses from Japan or plasticy E-series lenses. Considerig the price for the helicoid adapter (~150€), it looks like buying an APS-C lens is the more sensible solution.
Are you after an extreme macro or a normal macro that can shoot normal distances?
For normal macros, you'll find most wide angles of moderate width only do 0.5x magnification without extension tubes. Laowa does make an ultra-wide 15mm f/4 macro that does 1:1, though. Plenty of 1:1 50mm macros though, including Nikon's own 50mm MC.
For ultra-macro I use a Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5x-5x - of course 2.5x magnification is the LOWEST it can go (and I find there are some reflections at 5x, so I stick to around 4.3x at maximum). It's an amazingly sharp lens, and does a wonderful job, but ultra-macro is not easy to shoot, and I would view a motorized macro rail as an absolute must when using one. Typically, I'm shooting 100-200 image focus stacks, using a WeMacro motorized focus rail (and typically strobes), at f/4 (smaller diffraction takes a huge hit. Works great, though. Some examples below.
This is a 276 image focus stack on the Z8 at around 4x magnification: (SuperSparc Processor)
This is a 100 image or so stack on the Z5 II at around 3x I believe:
Ulff wrote:
Your guess goes in the wrong direction: for this application I used a 50mm maco lens (native 1:2) with shift capabilities. Merging 2 images fully shifted together effectively doubles the sensor size, resulting in a FOV identical to a 35mm lens on full frame...
Quite interesting
I guess similar results could be obtained with the PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED.
Egg Salad wrote:
I searched again for the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. Without success. All I can find are collectors' lenses from Japan or plasticy E-series lenses.
Ripolini wrote:
I guess similar results could be obtained with the PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED.
Yes, because the reproduction ratio goes down to 1:2, too. For Nikon cameras this would probably be the easier choice. When looking for wider angle FOVs, the 45mm (vs. 50mm for the Canon) sounds like an advantage, but the Canon can shift slightly more so that they are more similar than different in this regard.
That said, the Canon is the newer and more modern lens with significantly less CA and it is sharper especially in the shifted parts of the image.
Both lenses also have the advantage of the tilt-capability compared to regular macro lenses. Especially when focus stacking is not an option (e.g. in handheld scenarios) this is bonus that could be used in many creative ways. On the other hand: in handheld macro-scenarios I probably wouldn't be very successful with shifting and merging...
I bought the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED several years ago and wasn't impressed; I returned it. I had the PC 85/2.8 and it was a good lens; I sold it, BTW. It seems Canon made better tilt & shift lenses.
Jman13 wrote:
Are you after an extreme macro or a normal macro that can shoot normal distances?
For normal macros, you'll find most wide angles of moderate width only do 0.5x magnification without extension tubes. Laowa does make an ultra-wide 15mm f/4 macro that does 1:1, though. Plenty of 1:1 50mm macros though, including Nikon's own 50mm MC.
For ultra-macro I use a Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5x-5x - of course 2.5x magnification is the LOWEST it can go (and I find there are some reflections at 5x, so I stick to around 4.3x at maximum). It's an amazingly sharp lens, and does a wonderful job, but ultra-macro is not easy to shoot, and I would view a motorized macro rail as an absolute must when using one. Typically, I'm shooting 100-200 image focus stacks, using a WeMacro motorized focus rail (and typically strobes), at f/4 (smaller diffraction takes a huge hit. Works great, though. Some examples below.
@JMan
I'm looking for a casual wide-angle macro for the 1:5 to 2:1 range. I don't have the patience (and wouldn't enjoy) focus stacking, I'm looking for something that works mostly handheld.
I ruled out Laowa's 15/4 because of field curvature and miniscule working distance (10mm).
Have you considered these two lenses? Both of them have very good minimum focus distance specifications and are easy to adapt and probably small enough for you:
- Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF: well known for its 0.17m minimal focus distance (max. magnification ratio 1:2.3)
You can also look at their C/Y-predecessors and at the Zeiss ZF 25 f2.0 (sharper across the frame, but less max. magnification).
I don't remember how sharp these lenses are towards the edges at their minimal focus distance (the center should be very sharp) and how field curvature behaves. I assume although that they are good alternatives to the Nikon 28 f2.8.
Egg Salad wrote:
As for my use case: I've got everything covered except a wide angle macro. This means I doubt I'd use it for anything else than close-up shooting. Macro lenses are pretty slow anyways. I'd mostly use it as a walk-around lens and capture whatever I think would look interesting, probably plants and critters.
Sure you really need 1:1 for that use case? I think even with 1:2 you'll often run into issues with casting a shade onto your subject..
@Ulff
No, I haven't but I have now.
Since I still have the Loxia 25/2.4, neither of these lenses make sense. They're bigger, heavier and still surprisingly expensive. I'd still need a helicoid adapter to reach my desired magnification figures. The Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN looks like the better choice.
Performance-wise, the 25mm Distagon looks weak: https://photozone.de/nikon_ff/585-zeisszf2528ff?start=1
@fjablo
Need is a strong word in that context lol
Thanks to you, I own the Sony 28-70/2 I mentioned in my initial post. This lens does up to 1:1.7 with a 16mm extension tube. Buying another lens in the same FL range that offers even less magnification doesn't sound useful.
So no, I don't need 1:1 but I want to have the option.Subject shading is an issue...you can't have it all.
The Laowa: Yes, totally but I can't justify the price for a lens I'll only use occasionally.
. I used an empirical testing approach to meet as many of your criteria as possible and this is my best result so far: 
. the 50 and 90 are my favorite macro lenses.
