I had seen somewhere a comparison between various macro lenses. I have a Tamrom 90mm but the downside is the barrel extension near 1:1 reduces the front of lens to subject while reducing the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6. The Tamron depth of field is about about 2 mm or so.
What I wanted to see is a net distance from front of lens at 1:1 combined with final aperture with more depth of field to see if there is a better option. The Nikon site just shows the focal plane to subject and does not mention final aperture.
I was sure there was a chart that compared the parameters (final aperture, lens from to subject, depth of field) but cannot find it now.
#1. "RE: Macro lens comparison" In response to Reply # 0 Wed 02-Jan-13 03:14 PM by elec164
There's a link in the pinned 'Macro Photography Tips and Tricks' that has a chart of working distances of most macro lenses. Perhaps that is what you were referring to?
Edited to add: As to DOF: with macro distances the standard DOF charts and calculators are not totally accurate and DOF is generally a bit greater than they show. Also with macro the magnification factor determines DOF which makes DOF focal length independent at that point. Or to put it another way, I believe at 1:1 the DOF will be the same whether you use a 50mm or 200mm focal length. The difference being the working distance is greater with the 200mm lens.
#2. "RE: Macro lens comparison" In response to Reply # 0
Below is a link explaining the decrease in aperture on macro lenses. When reviewing the chart in the link Pete provided keep in mind that the working distance is from the front of the lens. Your Tamron 90mm has a deep recessed front element that I never feel the need to use a lens hood with. For the rest of my macro lenses the front element is not recessed and I always use a lens hood (which decreases working distance by the depth of the hood).
#4. "RE: Macro lens comparison" In response to Reply # 0
If you want more working room you need a longer focal length. For Example a 200mm macro has more woking distance than a 150mm macro which has more working distance than a 90mm macro. There's nothing you can do about the DOF as that's a function of the magnification assuming a fixed aperture.
#5. "RE: Macro lens comparison" In response to Reply # 4
>Hi, > >If you want more working room you need a longer focal length. >For Example a 200mm macro has more woking distance than a >150mm macro which has more working distance than a 90mm macro. >There's nothing you can do about the DOF as that's a function >of the magnification assuming a fixed aperture.
Not an infallible rule, as there are examples where going to a shorter FL gives a greater WD...for example, the Tamron 60mm has more WD at 1:1 than the Tamron 90mm...Problem is that there are many variables; some front elements are deeply recessed, others are not, some lenses use internal focusing (focusing by reducing the effective FL of the lens), others focus by extension...etc. All contribute to the differences in the resultant WD that is available.