Proving that I really do pay attention here is the front runner for my new lens

[Manfred M]

As I understand the Tamaron it works he same as the lens I now have. Autofocus when I want it manual when I don't? When I get up close and personal it is not difficult to line up the cross-hairs where I need them to be.

Most of the macro lenses work that way. The problem is that autofocus is fine for non-macro shooting. It doesn't work well at all for macro work. The lens tends to focus on the wrong part of the image all the time.

[rpcrowe]

Brian,

Although my Tamron Macro has perfectly decent (albeit a tad slow) autofocus, I do most of my macro work in manual focus.

I was thinking of your mobility and since I have arthritis to a great degree, can understand the limitations.

Perhaps a zoom lens with a 1:2 or even 1:4 subject/image ratio could work for you since you could adjust the field covered using the zoom rather that being required to move the camera/lens. It is certainly a lot easier to do that.

Perhaps the below chart might help you decide what lens you can best use...

Image Ratio = Minimum Area Covered By Sony APSC at that image ratio
1:1 = 23.6 × 15.7 mm
1:2 = 47.2 x 31.4 mm
1:3 = 78.9 x 47.1 mm
1:4 = 94.4 x 62.8 mm

Note: The focal length has no relation to the area covered at any specific image ratio, only the image ratio and sensor size determines that. The focal length does, however. determine the camera to subject distance needed to achieve that image ratio. The size of a subject at any ratio is the same whether you are shooting full frame or crop sensor. The difference is the area covered by each size sensor.

In other words: the size of a circle 1/4 inch in diameter will be 1/4 inch in diameter on the sensor if shot in 1:1 image ratio. The difference will be that the full frame sensor will cover more area around that 1/4 inch circle. The camera to subject distance for any given image ratio and focal length will be exactly the same for a full frame camera as for a crop camera - as long as we are shooting at the same focal length and image ratio.

Remember: we're talking about the image size on the sensor. You will of course, enlarge any image for any eventual use. This is why many zoom lenses use the advertising ploy that they are "macro". Because after enlarging the image to the standard 4 x 6 inch print size, the image can then be about life size or approximately 1:1

[Geoff F]

Do bear in mind the available depth of focus from a macro lens, Brian.

This can vary from a couple of centimeters to only millimeters depending on the actual lens and shooting set up.

You can often get away with having out of focus areas with subjects such as insects providing you manually focus to get their eyes sharply focused but it is a different matter with whole flowers. Which is why I mentioned in another thread that my first choice for whole flower scenes is my general purpose Tamron 24-70 lens which focuses down to 8 ins and still gives a reasonable amount of focus depth. When using my macro lens for flowers I usually have to stack two or more shots with different focus points to achieve a whole flower in focus.

Stacking can produce excellent results from a macro lens providing you have suitable conditions such as no wind movement and acceptable software; but is this what you want?

[JBW]

Brian,

Although my Tamron Macro has perfectly decent (albeit a tad slow) autofocus, I do most of my macro work in manual focus.

I was thinking of your mobility and since I have arthritis to a great degree, can understand the limitations.

Perhaps a zoom lens with a 1:2 or even 1:4 subject/image ratio could work for you since you could adjust the field covered using the zoom rather that being required to move the camera/lens. It is certainly a lot easier to do that.

Perhaps the below chart might help you decide what lens you can best use...

Image Ratio = Minimum Area Covered By Sony APSC at that image ratio
1:1 = 23.6 × 15.7 mm
1:2 = 47.2 x 31.4 mm
1:3 = 78.9 x 47.1 mm
1:4 = 94.4 x 62.8 mm

Note: The focal length has no relation to the area covered at any specific image ratio, only the image ratio and sensor size determines that. The focal length does, however. determine the camera to subject distance needed to achieve that image ratio. The size of a subject at any ratio is the same whether you are shooting full frame or crop sensor. The difference is the area covered by each size sensor.

In other words: the size of a circle 1/4 inch in diameter will be 1/4 inch in diameter on the sensor if shot in 1:1 image ratio. The difference will be that the full frame sensor will cover more area around that 1/4 inch circle. The camera to subject distance for any given image ratio and focal length will be exactly the same for a full frame camera as for a crop camera - as long as we are shooting at the same focal length and image ratio.

Remember: we're talking about the image size on the sensor. You will of course, enlarge any image for any eventual use. This is why many zoom lenses use the advertising ploy that they are "macro". Because after enlarging the image to the standard 4 x 6 inch print size, the image can then be about life size or approximately 1:1

Geoff uses and suggests I look into a 24-70 Tamron. What you have just written makes me think you would agree with the thought if not the exact lens?

[JBW]

Do bear in mind the available depth of focus from a macro lens, Brian.

This can vary from a couple of centimeters to only millimeters depending on the actual lens and shooting set up.

You can often get away with having out of focus areas with subjects such as insects providing you manually focus to get their eyes sharply focused but it is a different matter with whole flowers. Which is why I mentioned in another thread that my first choice for whole flower scenes is my general purpose Tamron 24-70 lens which focuses down to 8 ins and still gives a reasonable amount of focus depth. When using my macro lens for flowers I usually have to stack two or more shots with different focus points to achieve a whole flower in focus.

Stacking can produce excellent results from a macro lens providing you have suitable conditions such as no wind movement and acceptable software; but is this what you want?

In our garden a windless day is a rarity.

Realize that you are dealing with an ignorant, though not stupid person. And removing ignorance is time consuming.

It sounds to me that I need a lens that is not a 90 or a 110 but something that is 24 - 70 or 50 - 300 with a close to macro closeup potential. And I need this because if it is a 90 or a 110 I will have to physically move the camera and if it is a true macro my DoF is going to be its bitsy.

Have I finally understood the problem properly?

[Stagecoach]

and if it is a true macro my DoF is going to be its bitsy.

Have I finally understood the problem properly?

Brian,

For clarity,

The DOF will get smaller as you get closer to the subject and the DOF will also get smaller as you increase aperture.

Filling the frame (sensor) with a hibiscus using either a zoom lens set at 40mm OR using a true 90mm (1:1) macro lens is going to give you the same DOF.

Grahame

PS, thanks for your PM, I'm battened down now as cyclone Winston is a direct hit on us.

[JBW]

Brian,

For clarity,

The DOF will get smaller as you get closer to the subject and the DOF will also get smaller as you increase aperture.

Filling the frame (sensor) with a hibiscus using either a zoom lens set at 40mm OR using a true 90mm (1:1) macro lens is going to give you the same DOF.

Grahame

PS, thanks for your PM, I'm battened down now as cyclone Winston is a direct hit on us.

Stay safe

[Geoff F]

Any prime lens, Brian, whether macro or not, will certainly mean physically moving your camera around to achieve the required composition; which can be a bit fiddly at times and particularly where you have obstructions in the way of a tripod. However, prime lenses will give you good quality results and can work out cheaper than similar zoom lenses. So it is, like so much with life in general, a case of win a bit then lose a bit.

Rating macro lenses as 1:1 or any other figure can be misleading. It does give a comparison figure but that may not be meaningful to you. For example, I use a 180 mm macro lens for insects because I normally reckon that if I can get withing 12 ins of a live subject I have done well. A smaller lens may give me a 1:1 rating at 6 ins but that wouldn't be of any use to me because my subject would have run away before I got that close.

But obviously that would be a different matter with a static subject.

So you really need to work out exactly what will be your average subjects; including size and desired shooting distance. For instance, although that macro lens will focus at 1 ft I sometimes have to back off by 5 or 6 ft if I want to fit a whole flower within that frame size. Which is where a general purpose zoom that will focus reasonably close can have advantages. And your focus depth may be better with such a lens compared with a true macro.

Certainly not an easy subject for a rather pricey decision.

All that I can say is when I go into the woods looking for botanical subjects my usual kit is the 24-70 lens plus a relatively large macro which tends to equip me for most circumstances including any landscape type of scene. I also have a 24-105 lens which gives a bit more zoom at the long end but that doesn't help at all for closer subjects where I have to back off a bit to enable focusing at the 105 end. So in effect, if I can physically get close enough, 70 mm gives exactly the same image size as 105 mm which has to be used from a greater distance.

In reality, my 24-70 lens will allow me to get ever so slightly closer to the subject than the 24-105 at the same zoom setting.

Are there any tables showing lens focusing depths, other than those useful statistics given above?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Brian,

Reading Geoff's post, it occurs to me that you should be able to get an idea of working with a prime lens by setting your FujiFilm S4200 to the appropriate focal length marking on the zoom barrel (and then not changing it).

If you want to replicate the angle of view of say, a Tamron 90mm lens on your A58, you would need to set the S4200 lens for 135mm - the increase is because you Sony A58 has a crop factor of 1.5.

If you want to replicate the angle of view of say, a 105mm lens, you would need to set the S4200 lens for 157mm - or as near as you can guess.

This won't help you replicate shooting distances (and hence magnification) of a Macro lens, since they won't be comparable, but it will for the field of view.

Cheers, Dave

[Geoff F]

I now see that Ted has given some useful focus depth figures in one of your other threads, Brian.

Warning~ another unrepentent veggie shot!

[JBW]

Okay Geoff, Dave, Grahame, Manfred and all others

Any prime lens, Brian, whether macro or not, will certainly mean physically moving your camera around to achieve the required composition; which can be a bit fiddly at times and particularly where you have obstructions in the way of a tripod. However, prime lenses will give you good quality results and can work out cheaper than similar zoom lenses. So it is, like so much with life in general, a case of win a bit then lose a bit.

Maybe, just maybe this makes sense?

Geoff your 24-70 is close to my 18 - 55. (not necessarily in quality but in options). So lets try this scenario to get me the most possibilities for pleasure and learning.

I keep 18 -55 as my goto.
I throw into the bag (gently of course) a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Maxxum SLR B&H # TA9028MMAF MFR # AF272M-700 This gives me a dedicated good quality macro.

To keep it company in the bag I include for birds, the moon and who knows what else a Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Sony Digital SLR Cameras B&H # TA70300S MFR # AFA005S-700

Other brands or similar models are not ruled out. It just seems to me that if I lower my quality expectations just a gnat I can open up exciting new realms of photography at the same basic cost?
Brian

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

I believe this comment from Geoff is misleading. The DOF is NOT going to be better by using a general purpose Zoom than using a 'true' macro (or pseudo macro) lens. If you frame the subject equally the DOF will be equal.

Which is where a general purpose zoom that will focus reasonably close can have advantages. And your focus depth may be better with such a lens compared with a true macro.

To throw in another one, my 70-300mm Tamron model has a pseudo macro mode (approx 1:2 from what I recall) and I'll try and post a shot here today using it to give you an idea of capability.

Grahame

PS, We got really hammered by the hurricane but are safe.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I believe this comment from Geoff is misleading. The DOF is NOT going to be better by using a general purpose Zoom than using a 'true' macro (or pseudo macro) lens. If you frame the subject equally the DOF will be equal.



To throw in another one, my 70-300mm Tamron model has a pseudo macro mode (approx 1:2 from what I recall) and I'll try and post a shot here today using it to give you an idea of capability.

Grahame

PS, We got really hammered by the hurricane but are safe.

Survuving a serious hammering is a good feeling.

[xpatUSA]

Okay Geoff, Dave, Grahame, Manfred and all others

Maybe, just maybe this makes sense?

Geoff your 24-70 is close to my 18 - 55. (not necessarily in quality but in options). So lets try this scenario to get me the most possibilities for pleasure and learning.

I keep 18 -55 as my goto.
I throw into the bag (gently of course) a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Maxxum SLR B&H # TA9028MMAF MFR # AF272M-700 This gives me a dedicated good quality macro.

To keep it company in the bag I include for birds, the moon and who knows what else a Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Sony Digital SLR Cameras B&H # TA70300S MFR # AFA005S-700

Brian

Looks good to me Brian. I have no experience with Tamron but the price is right and the specs look fine for your expressed expectations. Shipping cost will take you over the budget though

[JBW]

Looks good to me Brian. I have no experience with Tamron but the price is right and the specs look fine for your expressed expectations. Shipping cost will take you over the budget though

Not so much. My sister in Canada was going to be shipping us down some stuff anyway. She will wait for sales and with any luck everything will come in under budget.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

As promised some examples of what you can achieve with the different lenses (approx FLs)/and magnifications.

Unfortunately there's no flowers left so I used the closest I could find to a hibiscuss

No 1

Used the 28-75mm Tamron (similar to Geoffs) at 75mm at the closest focusing distance possible.


No 2
Used the 105mm 'True Macro 1:1' Nikon and framed the image the same as No 1. This is to give you an example of DOF compared with using a standard zoom. I took all these shots hand held in failing light so minor differences are down to where I manually focussed, in all images on the front match head as good as I could.



No 3

This is as example of the closest I could focus with the 28-75mm Tamron at 28mm, pretty useless if your subject was the size of a matchbox.



No 4

This is an example of the closest I could focus using the 105mm and is a 1:1 magnification of the subject on the sensor.



No 5

This is using the 'Psuedo Macro' setting on the 70-300mm Tamron and the closest I could focus.



Hope these give you some idea that may be easier to visualise than figures.

All images uncropped, on APS-C sensor. Only adjustments were a bit of brightening to balance the exposures.

Grahame

[JBW]

Okay now i can see what my brain has been trying to understand. Not quite the shape of a hibiscus but the colours are close. Seems to me that if I buy the 16 to300 mm telephoto ~ a 90 or 105 macro and keep my 18 to 55 I pretty much cover all the bases on learning the craft.

the good thing is that while trying to buy these in the Philippines is hard My sister in Canada will start watching the sales for me.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Grahame,

Firstly I am glad you are safe, I thought of you when I watched the TV news this morning.


That's a really helpful post for Brian, the only bit of information he might find useful is the working distance* for each of the examples, since that will give him an idea of how close or far you were from your Hibiscus matchbox. (great example btw)

* by 'working distance', I mean front of lens (not hood) to point of focus on subject

Thanks, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Brian,

The two lenses you linked to look OK, mid-range (where I tend to go).

I should point out that the 70-300mm you linked in post #31 is not the same as Grahame's, his is the macro telephoto version, which is actually considerably cheaper, but I assume the absolute IQ will suffer for the design/construction compromises made for macro and price point.

The one you linked will not give as much magnification as Grahame's shot #5 does, but then you'll have the proper macro lens to compensate, although with it being 90mm rather than 300mm, you'll need to get much closer to achieve that magnification.

First off, that may not always be possible and also, changing shooting distance that much will have some effect on perspective. In terms of this last point, compare Grahame's shots 4 and 5 and the distances and sizes of foreground speck and background shadow under the matchbox tray relative to the match head. That said, this is secondary to being able to focus the shot or not at the required magnification due to where it might be (e.g. often 'buried in the bushes').


I really couldn't say whether the drop in IQ of the 'macro' 70-300mm vs the normal/better 70-300mm would be beneficial for you in terms of the shooting distance versatility of the two lenses.

I hope that helps, Dave