deepbluesee
新手上路
- 注册
- 2002-12-19
- 消息
- 463
- 荣誉分数
- 0
- 声望点数
- 0
专业微距头是好. 但重量跟价钱也都好. 每次出去老多带个头太麻烦. 加2X后像质有下降没错, 但看看那300MM以上小炮的价格也就沉下心来了. 总比那些变光圈的小炮效果好些吧? 看了我转的那贴吗? 我能拍出那样就够了.
Macro Lens
- 主题发起人 Xterra
- 开始时间
Xterra: my understanding of macro is that the image size on sensor/film is comparable to life size of the subject. So the eagle shot aren't really macro.
Most of my sharpest photos are from the 2 primes, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. After I got the 85, I barely use the 50 anymore since 85 focus much faster and it's very sharp wide open. Below is an example: 100% crop of a RAW photo with only level adjustment, no sharpening whatsoever. This is 85/1.8 at f2.8 1/400s ISO400. I consider this very sharp.
Most of my sharpest photos are from the 2 primes, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. After I got the 85, I barely use the 50 anymore since 85 focus much faster and it's very sharp wide open. Below is an example: 100% crop of a RAW photo with only level adjustment, no sharpening whatsoever. This is 85/1.8 at f2.8 1/400s ISO400. I consider this very sharp.
TheOneAndOnly
Moderator
- 注册
- 2002-10-27
- 消息
- 7,067
- 荣誉分数
- 1
- 声望点数
- 168
其实Tamron 90 macro也不错啊
Thanks!
- 注册
- 2003-11-18
- 消息
- 2,863
- 荣誉分数
- 14
- 声望点数
- 0
Could not agree more with what fad said.
Let's say the most popular Nikon micro lens, 60mm f/2.8D (Once in a while, every National Geographic photographer had one in his/her bag.
), the close-up distance is 0.22m at 1:1 reproduction ratio. This means, if I have it on my D70 (with CCD size 23.7 x 15.6 mm, a little smaller than a 1 canadian dollar coin), and shoot a 1 dollar about 22cm in front of me. I will get a photo 3008x2000 with nothing else but only the coin.
Let's say the most popular Nikon micro lens, 60mm f/2.8D (Once in a while, every National Geographic photographer had one in his/her bag.
), the close-up distance is 0.22m at 1:1 reproduction ratio. This means, if I have it on my D70 (with CCD size 23.7 x 15.6 mm, a little smaller than a 1 canadian dollar coin), and shoot a 1 dollar about 22cm in front of me. I will get a photo 3008x2000 with nothing else but only the coin.I totally agree with you. I feel like being ripped off by those lens makers. hell, what can we do about it? when need it, I will have to buy it anyway. I really really wished that I could get a 2.0x that would work as great as 1.4x.
big sigh....
your advice has been really carefully examed and considered. After all, I don't want to waste my money for nothing. I really appreciated your advice. It is definitely cheaper to get a regular prime.
To me, I want a macro, because they are sharper (than regular primes) and versatile. I mean, I can use them as a normal prime lens. I can also use them as a true macro lens when I need 1:1 life size too. I have to admit that I am a bit insane in pursuing the sharpness of photos. I just love to see every single bit of details in my photos. I therefore, want the sharpest possbile lens for my photos, although, macro lenses are bing more expensive, slower AF and slower in aperture than their regular prime siblings.
I find that Macro (in my definition it doesn't have to be 1:1 though) are where some real photo fun from. It is great to have a dedicated macro lens for it. don't you think?
Thanks again!
