If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
* 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
"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. :-) ) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Tamron 60mm macro for APS-C cameras | Neil Harrington[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | May 8th 09 05:50 PM |
Tamron 60mm f/2 macro | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | April 26th 09 08:23 AM |
Canon EF 50mm 50 F2.5 Macro vs EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro USM Lens | cameraproblem | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 5th 06 06:45 PM |
New Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro? | grenner | Digital Photography | 26 | April 4th 05 12:27 AM |
Canon EF-S 60mm macro | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | February 20th 05 02:40 PM |