15mm macro lens

[DanK]

I was unimpressed by the first release of the Venus Optics 60mm fully manual macro lens because a manual aperture would be nearly impossible for bugs (for me), and there are lots of options at at that focal length. However, they are now releasing a 15mm 1:1 macro, which is unique. See this link for some images. I hae to admit that this one really intrigues me, even though I would find it useless for bugs. I've always been intrigued by wide-angle macro, but my wide-angle lenses won't focus with the smallest extension tube I have. Apparently, there was a very thin one made for Nikons for a while that will work with some wide-angle lenses, but I can't find a tube shorter than 10mm for Canons.

It won't be out for a few weeks yet, but if anyone gets a copy when they are available and has observations to share, I'd be interested in hearing.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

This one too: http://www.diyphotography.net/love-h...ee-arthropods/

Being restricted to Sigma AF mount, the closest I've got to that is the Sigma 18-50mm ƒ/2.8 EX DC Macro (so-called) so I could try it at 18mm. It promises 1:3 magnification here , so maybe some similar but not quite so extreme shots could be attempted.

However, on my Sigma SD14, 18mm is 31mm equivalent so, in the end, a waste of time perhaps . . .

[Stagecoach]

Dan, I think it's the uniqueness that makes this a well worth addition to a serious macro photographers kit.

I would happily put up with the non auto aperture and looking at the examples showing the DoF it could predominately be used opened wider than a standard FL macro.

[Krawuntzel]

Hello Dan
this link might help you:
http://learnmacro.com/
Erwin

[DanK]

Erwin,

Thanks. I am itching to get this lens, although unlike the authors of that article, I don't think I will even try it for bugs. 100mm with an automatic diaphragm is hard enough for that.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

Dan wrote, "I was unimpressed by the first release of the Venus Optics 60mm fully manual macro lens because a manual aperture would be nearly impossible for bugs (for me)"

I agree with Dan... The manual aperture in which the photographer needs to open and close the aperture manually in order to attain the correct f/stop is obsolete technology. It is also a dirt cheap way of making a lens.

Using automatic aperture; this should not be construed to mean automatic exposure, you decide upon what aperture you want (measuring the exposure either manually or with some help from the camera as in: full automatic, Programmed automatic, Shutter speed priority or Aperture priority) and then you focus with the lens wide open. As you trip the shutter, the lens automatically closes down to the selected aperture.

I cut my photographic teeth on reflex cameras which had non-automatic lenses and believe me, they are a BIG PITA to use. In reality, reflex cameras never attained great popularity until automatic lenses were common place. Even Pre-Set lenses (a bit easier to use than the completely manual lens) were never really very popular...

Besides being a PITA to manually open and close the lens to focus and shoot, it could be a bit difficult to ensure that the lens doesn't move when doing so. The DOF in macro work is so slim that the slightest movement can knock your subject out of focus.

Besides, please educate me! I cannot see any reason for using a wide angle macro lens. Using a macro lens with a longer focal length, you simple set up with the camera a slightly longer distance from the subject - which is to me an advantage.

DOF, in macro photography, is determined by two parameters: Image Ratio and F/stop! The sensor size and focal length and subject to image distance are irrelevant. A 1:1 image shot with a crop camera will have the same DOF as a 1:1 image shot with a full frame camera as long as the f/stop is the same.

A 1:1 image shot with a 180mm lens will have (as long as the f/stop is the same) the same DOF as a 50mm, a 60mm, a 90mm, or a 100mm lens at 1:1... As long as your final product has the subject in an equal size...

[xpatUSA]

Dan wrote, "I was unimpressed by the first release of the Venus Optics 60mm fully manual macro lens because a manual aperture would be nearly impossible for bugs (for me)"

I agree with Dan... The manual aperture in which the photographer needs to open and close the aperture manually in order to attain the correct f/stop is obsolete technology. It is also a dirt cheap way of making a lens.

I once had the "best" of both worlds - an early Sigma 50mm Macro that had an aperture ring but the camera controlled the aperture when the ring was set to f/32.

Besides, please educate me! I cannot see any reason for using a wide angle macro lens.

The subject or the whole scene can be distorted deliberately for effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29

Try shooting a dachshund from the front with the said 15mm lens

Using a macro lens with a longer focal length, you simple set up with the camera a slightly longer distance from the subject - which is to me an advantage . .

But, only at a certain focal length will the subject will have a "normal" (undistorted) appearance.

43mm for 135 format springs to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

At other focal lengths, less so. Shooting a 105mm on my 1.7 crop Sigma produced quite flat-looking subjects, so my preference is the 50mm (the shortest FL true macro they make - 24mm would be better). And I sold the 105mm - well-respected though it is.

P.S. Found this rather illustrative video while googling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMw6flbIx-8

Enjoy

[DanK]

Besides, please educate me! I cannot see any reason for using a wide angle macro lens. Using a macro lens with a longer focal length, you simple set up with the camera a slightly longer distance from the subject - which is to me an advantage.

Each focal length has a different relationship between background and foreground. a 15mm macro at 1:1 will have far more in the background, and far less background blur, than a 60mm macro at 1:1, let alone a longer one. In fact, one reason I use a 100mm in preference to a 60mm in some cases is to increase background blur.

To each his own, but I have been interested in wide-angle macro for several years, but I never had equipment that let me do it. I really like the idea of images that show something at macro levels of magnification while also showing the setting. I am strongly tempted to buy this lens for outdoor flower macros. I am not sure whether I would want the FOV that it yields on a FF or on a crop, but if I do spring for it, I will try it on both.

Dan

[Chayelle]

Each focal length has a different relationship between background and foreground. a 15mm macro at 1:1 will have far more in the background, and far less background blur, than a 60mm macro at 1:1, let alone a longer one. In fact, one reason I use a 100mm in preference to a 60mm in some cases is to increase background blur.

To each his own, but I have been interested in wide-angle macro for several years, but I never had equipment that let me do it. I really like the idea of images that show something at macro levels of magnification while also showing the setting. I am strongly tempted to buy this lens for outdoor flower macros. I am not sure whether I would want the FOV that it yields on a FF or on a crop, but if I do spring for it, I will try it on both.

Dan

I will be eager to see your use of this lens, Dan...

[loosecanon]

Nikon and Canon had wide lenses designed for bellows units.

Canon used a RMS thread to Canon FD. These lenses are designed for high magnification but also the ability to light the subject. Normal wide angle lenses obstruct the lighting of the subject even at 1:1 yet alone the higher magnicicatins these are designed for, My 35mm canon bellows lens is designed for 1:1 to 3:1 ie 3X life size.