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.
. I used an empirical testing approach to meet as many of your criteria as possible and this is my best result so far: 