The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf


It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

But when you actually take pictures, it's the same as using a 90 on FF.

Not for macro. 1:1 is 1:1 (a 4mm grain of rice images to 4mm on the
sensor regardless of the focal length).

I guess you don't actually take pictures?

For actual photograph as a communication/art form amongst humans, the 60/2.0
on APS-C not only does everything 90/2.8 does on FF (in a very similar
manner), it provides quite a bit of added functionality as well.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf
Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and it's
seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the 100mm
Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work?

Often I find my 90 or 100 give me less field of view than I would like at a
comfortable working distance. Not for bugs and flowers of course,

It all depends on intent. Sometimes it's nice to get more context in a
macro flower shot like this at 24mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7620795250639/
A 105mm lens would have completely lost the background or narrowed it to
where only one flower showed beyond.


but for
copying a painting (for example) when I don't need much magnification but
want the corner-to-corner definition, flat field and distortionlessness of a
macro lens.

Right, without having to back up 30 feet.


And of an f/2 aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

I don't think anyone would use it wide open when doing macro, but it would
be very nice when doing portraiture. And at 90mm equivalence the 60 would be
ideal for that.




--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf


It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...
But when you actually take pictures, it's the same as using a 90 on FF.
Not for macro. 1:1 is 1:1 (a 4mm grain of rice images to 4mm on the
sensor regardless of the focal length).

I guess you don't actually take pictures?

For actual photograph as a communication/art form amongst humans, the 60/2.0
on APS-C not only does everything 90/2.8 does on FF (in a very similar
manner), it provides quite a bit of added functionality as well.

I actually do a lot of macro.

And regardless of the focal length of the lens 1:1 is 1:1. Since this
is a macro lens, that is a thing of importance. That's all I was
pointing out.

So re-read what I wrote and cool yer jets without the prose that you
assume is clever.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

Yes, I was heartily laughing over this as they were drooling over more
aperture for macro on a DSLR. None of them can think clearly. Nor take
macro pictures clearly, apparently.

OOoo ... look at that nice sharp speck of dust! But what's all that blurry
stuff in front of and behind it that it's laying on?

LOL

* Ofnuts wrote :
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and
it's seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the
100mm Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

I've come across a dentist how uses a 60mm macro lens for dental
work shots. Something to do with closer working distance in his
confined office space. He wouldn't have been shooting 1:1, but
still the difference in focal lengths and focusing distances was
enough for it to matter.

Agree about the f/2. You would virtually never be shooting macro
at f/2.8 let alone f/2

"Troy Piggins" wrote:

I've come across a dentist how uses a 60mm macro lens for dental
work shots. Something to do with closer working distance in his
confined office space. He wouldn't have been shooting 1:1, but
still the difference in focal lengths and focusing distances was
enough for it to matter.

Agree about the f/2. You would virtually never be shooting macro
at f/2.8 let alone f/2

The brighter viewfinder and more accurate focusing aren't to be sneezed at.
There's a review of it in this month's ???? (Landscape Photography) by a pro
who made her name doing nature macros with a 90/2.8 and 24x36mm film and is
very happy to have that equivalent focal length back.

For FF types, Zeiss makes a 100/2.0 macro that gets good reviews.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1141/cat/98

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:45:27 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


I just checked my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro and focus @ 1:1 is at about
340mm from the film plane. Lots of room to get light on the subject.

Per dpreview the "working distance" at 1:1 of the 60mm Tamron is 100mm
which I assume is from the front element. That means the camera is
closer, so more ambient light is blocked (esp. considering the
photographer's head).


I checked my Nikkor 60mm and object is about 80mm from the front edge of the
lens, and the glass is about another 20mm back, and the film plane another
140mm. Image to FP is 240mm. 1/1 seems to be the max for this lens.

Not the first choice if All I was doing was macro, but it's a great 60mm lens.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf
Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and
it's seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the
100mm Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work?

Often I find my 90 or 100 give me less field of view than I would like at
a comfortable working distance. Not for bugs and flowers of course,

It all depends on intent. Sometimes it's nice to get more context in a
macro flower shot like this at 24mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7620795250639/
A 105mm lens would have completely lost the background or narrowed it to
where only one flower showed beyond.

Yes, that's true.



but for copying a painting (for example) when I don't need much
magnification but want the corner-to-corner definition, flat field and
distortionlessness of a macro lens.

Right, without having to back up 30 feet.

Just so. My sister has a large painting of her two boys when they were young
that I'd like to copy, and I'd hate to try doing it with a 90 or 100. (I'd
also like to do some dental work on it. My youngest nephew has always been
annoyed that the painter was unnecessarily faithful to the fact that he, my
nephew, was missing a tooth at the time. :-) )

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf


It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

Not with this one, according to Tamron. They say its working distance is
about equal to that of the longer macro lenses. The front element is
right up front, rather than deeply recessed as it is on my Tamron 90 and
Tokina 100.

On my Minolta it is deeply recessed EXCEPT when taking macro. Then it's
way out there.

On both my Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm macro lenses, the front element is
deeply recessed in the barrel and that doesn't change a millimeter as it
goes from infinity to 1:1. When I say deeply recessed I mean about 30 mm on
the Tokina and about 40 mm on the Tamron.


I just checked my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro and focus @ 1:1 is at about
340mm from the film plane. Lots of room to get light on the subject.

Per dpreview the "working distance" at 1:1 of the 60mm Tamron is 100mm
which I assume is from the front element.

More likely the lens barrel, but since the Tamron 60's front element is
right up front there probably isn't much difference.

That means the camera is closer, so more ambient light is blocked (esp.
considering the photographer's head).

Well, if the photographer's head still needs to be there when the shot is
taken it might block *some* light but I don't think very much. It seems
unlikely that the light source would be behind his head in most cases.

Anyway, you're comparing two different measurements. You say your Minolta
100 reaches 1:1 focus 340 mm from the film plane, but that tells nothing
about working distance.

Trying it just now with my Tokina 100, focused at 1:1 the subject is about
310 mm from the focal plane and the working distance (i.e., to the front of
the lens barrel) is about 110 mm.

"Fools They Be" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

Yes, I was heartily laughing over this as they were drooling over more
aperture for macro on a DSLR.

Proving yet again that some people are terrifically amused by things they
understand only dimly if at all. I knew a fellow who actually laughed out
loud the first time he shut down Windows 95 and it told him "It is now safe
to turn off your computer." God knows why he thought that was hilarious, but
he did.

None of them can think clearly. Nor take
macro pictures clearly, apparently.

You are well named, I'll give you that.