On the assumption that 50mm to 105mm macro/micro lenses are primarily designed for close-up photography I'm curious as to why these high quality expensive lenses are usually available with large apertures? e.g. Nikon F2.8 and Zeiss F2. The application usually requires the DOF to be maximised.

Surely their high prices would be significantly reduced if these lenses were F4 or F5.6 maximum?

regards,

Ian

If only Mozart had had a camera

Surely their high prices would be significantly reduced if these lenses were F4 or F5.6 maximum?

True. Larger apertures do mean 2-4x more light meaning a brighter viewfinder for focusing

The application usually requires the DOF to be maximised.

Yes, the key word here is usually. In practice there are times when it is desirable to also have a very shallow DOF to isolate subject with selective focus and blur background. I like doing this with flowers. For example here are a few shot with a 150 f/2.8 macro at f/4
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/80111161
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/79991417

150 + 1,4x TC (210mm) wide open at f/4
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/79983773

So in addition to a brighter viewfinder, a faster lens also allows for more possibilities with shallow DOF work

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

An additional, important advantage of large apertures in macro lenses is that they facilitate focusing by more clearly showing where the focus plane is located, when used fully open to focus. This effect is due to the lower DOF of a wider aperture, and is separate from providing a bright image in the viewfinder (although both do help to focus). This is also the reason why focusing in macro photography is best done first with the lens fully open, and then by stopping down to verify the effect of DOF.

In fact, this is why I prefer not to use "classic" photomacrographic lenses like the 63mm Zeiss Luminar, which have apertures around f/4.5 - f/5.6, at low magnification in spite of their top resolution and contrast.

--ES

Far too much gear, far too little time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

...large apertures in macro lenses is that they facilitate focusing by more clearly showing where the focus plane is located, when used fully open to focus...

Good point.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Albert,

You reply was most illustrative and brought all the other great responses. For film I do have a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens for my T90 as well as auto extension tubes and Canon x2 extender so I'm quite familiar with shallow DOF.

I had made up my mind to buy the Nikon 105mm f2.8 DX VR but just this week before reading your reply I had been reading as much as I could find on close-up photography. On balance most posts favoured a macro lens from 150 to 200mm for a more comfortable working distance. The aperture was not much mentioned as the posters subjects were mainly small insects, coins etc where great DOF really was required.

I am so glad I looked at your gallery. I never realised that flower photographs could be enhanced so much by having such pleasant and colourful OOF backgrounds.

As a result I have changed my mind about the 105mm VR and I now will buy the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro and Sigma 1.4x extender. I alrteady have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR, so having VR on a 105 would not bring much advantage.

thanks to all,

Ian

If only Mozart had had a camera

Valentino's bee photo on sage posted above is amazing, especially since its working distance was apparently teriffic, especially with the TC. I think he has sold a few Sigma 150mm macro lenses and Sigma TC's here. However, I have a couple of related questions.

1. Test results of both the a Nikon and Canon version of the Sigma indicated some centering problems. I wonder if this issue has been fixed or if it's a matter of picking a good copy.

2. Of all the new or used macro lenses out there that fit a Nikon, which have the greatest working distances without attachments at high magnifications, say 1:1? This seems to me the same question as: Which macro lens has the highest true FL at 1:1 magnification? As the change in focal length at close magnification depends so much on lens design (and that in large part on the need to keep the max. effective aperture reasonably high at such magnification), an answer would seem to require testing or at least comparing test results.

3. Despire the light loss involved, putting a TC between a macro lens and a camera seems a great idea to increase working distance in theory. The results in the bee photo mentioned truly "knocked my socks off" in large part because of the quality of the results. I am interested in any tests or even anecdotal results of the image quality of such pairings including which TC was used.

Adrian


Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.

Adrian, I have heard of centering problems but have not really noticed any problems. Many others are now using this combo (you will see more posts in the summer months of macro shooting) and I never read of anyone reporting any problems or limitations. What is important is that you match the Sigma lens with the Sigma 1.4x TC (forget the 2x TC). When I first bought the lens I tried a Kenko TC and had problems and the Nikon is not friendly either. The Sigma is perfectly matched with the Sigma and I use the Sigma 1.4x TC on my larger 120-300 f/2.8 lens as well. Image degradation may be there but it is essentially not noticable. That makes this combo terrific since you get a 150 f/2.8 and 210 f/4 macro for the price of one.

Another great thing about 150 or greater macro lenses is that they include a tripod collar. The ability to switch from vertical to horizontal in seconds is just another great perk.

Here are a few butterfly portraits that are a little cropped and only slightly sharpened to see how great this combo can be
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/59093517
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/59094508

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

now will buy the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro and Sigma 1.4x extender

Thanks for the kind words. My first real macro was a Nikon 105 (non-VR) but I switched to the Sigma 150 almost 2 years ago and never looked back. I think you will find that the longer focal lenghts, and that includes adding the Sigma 1.4x to make this a 210mm f/4 lens, will give you much greater background control. You see the DOF may be the same as shorter focal lenghts but the field of view is smaller allowing for more apparent blur that allows your subject to pop from the backgorund. Also, by moving a little to either side you can often change the background color to what is directly behind the subject allowing you more control to pick a complimentary background.

Also, remember the longer FL is only part of the equation to get the type of pictures I linked to above. Care must be taken to search for a single flower that is separated from the background. In addition, shooting at shallow DOF often requires that you precisely find and aligned your camera to the plane that is perpendicular to the subject else you will get mixed results. Flowers like snapdragons can work well, but roses are more difficult.

Here is one more shot with the TC at f/5.6. The trick here was to get everything in the same plane before shooting
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/85298799

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Albert,

Please help me understand one more of my questions.

Since choosing the Sigma 150mm f2.8 and Sigma 1.4x I have pondered over why instead I'm not buying the Sigma 180mm f3.5? In that case I would not really need the 1.4x extender. The cost would not be much different.

I do not need this lens for any work other than close-up and so I have tried to think what disadvantage it might be to work with the longer lens and cannot think of any. Have I missed something?

Ian

If only Mozart had had a camera

>pondered over why instead I'm not buying the Sigma 180mm f3.5?
<...>
>I do not need this lens for any work other than close-up and
>so I have tried to think what disadvantage it might be to work
>with the longer lens and cannot think of any. Have I missed
>something?

I have the Sigma 180 mm (among several macro lenses), and I can think of both advantages and disadvantages, compared with the Sigma 150. The obvious advantage is the longer working distance of the 180 mm at high magnification, compared with the 150 mm. However, both lenses shorten their focal lengths considerably in the macro range, so both the working distance in absolute terms and the difference in working distance between the two lenses are less than you might expect. In practice, this means also that the difference in working distance between the Sigma 180 and a Micro Nikkor 105 mm at 1:1 is significant, but not extremely so. This also a factor to prefer the 180 mm, if you already have macro lenses of shorter focal lengths.

The disadvantages of the 180 mm over the 150 mm are its size and weight, which are quite a bit more than the 150. A further disadvantage is in the close-up range, especially in copy work. The working distance may become so high that you must climb on a ladder to look into the viewfinder if the camera is mounted vertically and the subject is on the floor. The 150 mm is a little better in this respect (although of course it is best to use a 50 mm to 90 mm for copy work).

One more disadvantage of the 180 mm is hand-held in relatively low light. You should not go below about 1/250 s exposures with this lens, but with the 150 mm you should get the same results at 1/180 s). A small difference, but it is there.

Performance in terms of resolution and contrast of the two Sigmas is probably similar. My Sigma 180 mm has a clearly higher resolution than the Micro Nikkor 60 mm and 105 mm (non-VR).

--ES

Far too much gear, far too little time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Enrico,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I do not have a macro lens at present otherwise I would have something to assess my 150 or 180 choice against.

When you say that at 1:1 both lenses shorten their F.L. considerably how do you know this if the lenses are internal focussing? Is it a function of the sensor to subject measurement?

regards,

Ian

If only Mozart had had a camera

>When you say that at 1:1 both lenses shorten their F.L.
>considerably how do you know this if the lenses are internal
>focussing? Is it a function of the sensor to subject
>measurement?

Basically, for an infinitely thin lens, at 1:1 the distance between lens and subject is 2*FL, and between lens and film/sensor also 2*FL, so in total the distance between sensor and subject is 4*FL. In actual camera lenses, the front and a rear nodal points do not coincide, so things get a little more complicated. However, ignoring this, if the distance between sensor and subject at 1:1 is much less than four times the nominal focal length at infinity, you have a lens that decreases its focal length when focused at 1:1 (which is the case of the two Sigma lenses we are discussing). The Sigma 180 has a focus distance of 460 mm at 1:1, instead of the 720 theoretically expected, which indicates an effective FL of 115 mm at 1:1 (not considering the nodal points, or more realistically around 90 mm allowing for separate nodal points). BTW, there is a table of working distances and focus distances of macro lenses in a topic pinned near the top of this group.

Lenses that do not have internal focusing or floating elements, on the other hand, have a constant focal length throughout their focusing range. Zoom lenses use internal moving elements to change their focal lengths, in a manner partly similar to lenses with internal focusing.

--ES

Far too much gear, far too little time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ian, the reason for me is essentially what Enrico wrote. I did try out the Sigma 180. I found that it is much more difficult to hold, espcially with a flash and that if I had to mount the flash on the hot shoe and had some challenges with lighting. Also, when I was playing with it the lenght made a few shots difficult when shooting straight down since I was too close to focus and compose. The 150 handled more like my old Nikon 105 which I liked.

The 150 + TC gives me versatility. I can have a 210 f/4 when I need it that has the virtue of that focal lenghts more shallow field of view along with the same WD as as the 150 allowing for greater than 1:1 mag or 1:1 mag with a longer WD than the 150. I also have the shorter 150 f/2.8 when needed. So I sort of got 2 lenses for the price of one If the 1.4x did not mate so well in terms of IQ with the Sigma I would have different thoughts. Actually I started off with a Kenko TC and not nothing but problems until I swtiched to the Sigma.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

- the screen gets darker the closer you focus - typically at 1:1 by about 1 stop with most AF macros rather than the old 2 stops quoted in many close up tables. F2.8 is oftrn effectively f4 for viewing at 1:1.
Depth of field is very small in macro so AF needs to be very accurate. The faster the lens aperture the more accurate AF can work.
I agree most (but not all) macro shots are taken at f8 or smaller apertures but having a fairly fast maximum aperture helps make the lens work more efficiently.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

I like the limited DOF effect in Valentino's flower photo using the 150mm lens and the 1.4X TC.

Any comments on using a TC vs. extension tubes vs. good closeup lenses on a macro lens? The almost-collapse of focal length to the minimum on my Micro Nikkor 70-180mm at its maximum close up position (about 1:1.3) makes this option interesting. Sharpness vs. a 5T on the other end and light loss vs. using extension tubes seem relevant.

Adrian


Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.

I prefer a TC vs tubes or close-ups lenses primarily because the TC gives me more working distance while the other options reduce WD. This is important to me so I can also shoot bees and bugs without scaring them away. For example http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/80839117

However, some lenses match better than others with a TC. The Sigma 150 (and my Sigma 120-300) match extremely well with Sigma 1.4x TC's. I cannot say that, one way or the other, for the 70-180.

Bclaff uses the 70-180 with different combos. If he does not read this then start a new post with this question

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Albert,

I usually use my Kenko tubes with the 70-180mm but sometimes throw a 1.4xTC on, usually in addition to the tubes!

Regards,
Bill

Visit me at My site

I need some help here. Please correct for lenses in closeup use:

- Close-up lenses decrease the FL of the lens, decrease working distance, and do not affect the effective f/stop;

- TC's increase FL, increase working distance, and decrease the effective f/stop;

- Extension tubes do not affect FL, decrease working distance, and decrease the effective f/stop.


Also, how is the image quality of the 70-180mm with a TC at close distances? Which TC do you use?

Thanks.

Adrian


Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.

>I need some help here. Please correct for lenses in
>closeup use:
>
>- Close-up lenses decrease the FL of the lens, decrease
>working distance, and do not affect the effective f/stop;

correct

>- TC's increase FL,

yes

>increase working distance

if you compare with the same magnification on film/sensor achieved without TC, yes.
Edited to add: ... but probably not as much as you expect, you will lose some of the extra working distance because the TC + lens is longer than the lens alone.

>, and decrease the effective f/stop;

if you are talking of effective aperture, they make it narrower, i.e., they increase the F value

>- Extension tubes do not affect FL,

yes

> decrease working distance,

Depends on how the lens focuses. For lenses without internal focus or floating elements, an extension ring has exactly the same effect as the focusing helicoid of the lens.

>and decrease the effective f/stop.

The effective versus nominal f/stop depends on magnification, regardless of how you achieve it. At 1x, the effective F value is always like closing 2 stops from the nominal one (measured at infinity). Possible exceptions are lenses that change focal length substantially when focusing, but this is a matter of how the manufacturer decides to report the aperture to the camera, or indicate it on the lens barrel.

>Also, how is the image quality of the 70-180mm with a TC at
>close distances? Which TC do you use?
>
>Thanks.

--ES

Far too much gear, far too little time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>- Close-up lenses >snipped< and do not affect the effective f/stop;
Close up lenses change effective aperture, making a lens effectively faster with less depth of field.
>- TC's increase FL, >snipped< and decrease the effective f/stop;
TC's crop rather than change FL. They also gain dof (at the expense of a slower shutter speed) compared to a longer lens without a TC.
>- Extension tubes do not affect FL,
They increase effective focal length and make the effective aperture smaller, which is why the viewfinder is darker and for the same marked aperture shutter speeds are longer.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd