This site is ad-free. If you see any ads here, they are added by your ISP, or by spyware on your computer,
or you are visiting this site through frames of another site.
|
All modern, general-purpose macro lenses can focus between infinity and 1:1. Older macro lenses needed a matched extension ring in order to achieve 1:1, and typically attained only 1:2 without the ring. Most modern macro lenses focus from infinity to 1:1 without an extension ring. These lenses have a fixed focal length (albeit, see below) that ranges between 50 and 200 mm. From a mechanical point of view, these lenses are built essentially like ordinary lenses, but have longer helicoids and/or moving internal groups of optical elements to allow the extended focusing range. They also tend to have a higher sharpness and correction of optical aberrations than non-macro lenses. All major camera and lens manufacturers currently produce one or more models of macro lenses of this type. Specialist macro lenses typically cannot focus at infinity, and most cannot be used at all without additional equipment. This is the case, for instance, of the Olympus 135 mm f/4.5 shown above. To use them, you must mount them on bellows or extension tubes (see here). Some of these lenses provide reproduction ratios as high as 20:1, while others are optimised for reproduction ratios ranging to 1:1 or less. Their focal lengths are much variable, and range from roughly 10 to over 200 mm. The shorter focal lengths are used for higher magnification. There are several classical models of specialist macro lenses (e.g., the Zeiss Luminar series) which still command high prices on the second-hand market. Very few, if any, of these lenses are currently produced. The large majority of macro lenses is of very good to extremely good optical quality. The principal exceptions are among the legacy Soviet macro lenses. The mechanical quality of most macro lenses also ranges from adequate to very good. As a consequence, macro lenses are more expensive than general-purpose lenses of comparable focal length. Macro lenses with floating groups or internal focusing
The principal drawback of a shortened focal length at close range is that the working distance decreases accordingly. This is especially true of macro lenses of high focal length, because the savings achieved by manufacturers in this way are proportionately higher. On the other hand, the main reason for choosing a macro lens of high focal length is precisely its higher working distance, so a macro lens with internal focusing may fall short of your expectations in this respect. For instance, the Sigma Apo Macro 180 mm EX (rightmost in the above figures) is roughly a 185 mm at infinity, but becomes a 98 mm at 1:1. This lens is exceptionally good in many respects, but not if you expect exactly the working distance theoretically associated with a 180 mm. The amount of change in effective focal length of macro lenses is poorly documented by their manufacturers. Information on popular brands and models provided by users is often found by making a web search. Macro lenses and "macro" zoomsLenses used in macro photography must be able to provide a reproduction ratio of at least 1:1. Anything less than this qualifies, at best, as close-up. However, for the last three decades, many consumer-grade zooms have been called "macro" by their marketers. Almost invariably, these zooms stop significantly short of reaching a 1:1 reproduction ratio. The marketing stratagem of marking consumer zooms as "macro" lenses originated as an attempt to cram more functions into a lens, in order to make it desirable to a larger group of consumers. It was cheap and relatively easy to extend the focusing and zooming cams of a zoom to allow close-up focusing. Typically, though, close-up focusing becomes possible only at a fixed focal length, or within a narrow range of focal lengths. The quality of pictures taken at the close-up setting with the first "macro" zooms was mediocre. This has improved, but these zooms are still far from being as good as dedicated macro lenses. Resolution is better than in the first examples of "macro" zooms, but curvature of field and distortion, with very few exceptions, still are major problems. In addition, "macro" zooms typically achieve a reproduction ratio of only 1:3 to 1:6. The two examples shown above (both at the minimum and maximum extensions of their helicoids) do so, and perform poorly at close-up distances, when compared to true macro lenses. The improper use of the term "macro" creates confusion among unprepared buyers. As an example, Sigma is offering several "macro" consumer-grade zooms that provide a 1:3 to 1:3.5 reproduction ratio at a quality that does not satisfy exacting requirements, alongside with a line of true macro lenses that provide 1:1 and excellent performance (for a much higher price). Sigma indiscriminately calls both types of lenses macro. The maximum reproduction ratio of true macro lenses is listed in their technical specifications, but often this crucial bit of data is missing from the blurb that pushes "macro" zooms. There are very few, if any, true macro zooms. One of them is the Micro Nikkor AF 70-180 f/4.5-5.6, which reaches 1:1.3. It is not a true macro in reproduction ratio, but it is sufficiently close, and its optical performance is very good. This lens is discontinued. Apparently, it was too expensive to produce, and there is not enough demand for it. After all, in close-up and macro photography it is customary to change the focus settings and to move the camera back and forth in order to change magnification, so the real usefulness of a macro zoom is questionable. In some situations, it may be more comfortable to use than a lens of fixed focal length (for instance, a zoom allows changes of reproduction ratio without having to move the camera relative to the subject). However, there is nothing that a macro zoom can do, that cannot be duplicated (with a little extra work) by using one or more macro lenses of fixed focal length. There are only three zoom specialist macro lenses that I am aware of. One of these is the Zeiss Luminar Zoom (apparently optimized for the 2.5x-5x magnification range). The two others are the Zeiss Tessovar and the Wild line of macroscopes. Alternatives to macro lensesAn alternative to a macro lens is provided by the use of close-up lenses mounted in front of a general-purpose lens. The best lenses for this purpose are those of fixed focal length, as opposed to zooms. A focal length of 50 to 135 mm is most practical for this use. The strength of an appropriate diopter depends on the magnification to be attained, and on the focal length of the lens being used. Stronger diopters must be used for higher magnifications and lenses of shorter focal lengths. A reversed camera lens can be used instead of a close-up lens. Another alternative involves the use of a teleconverter between lens and camera body. A 2x teleconverter added to a lens capable of 1:1 magnification will effectively bring it to 2:1. The interesting fact is that the working distance (i.e., the distance between the front of the lens and the subject) will not decrease, so using a teleconverter may help you to photograph animals that are easily frightened when approached. The loss of light and the overall decrease in sharpness associated with the use of teleconverters also applies to macro photography. Extension rings and bellows can be used with non-macro lenses to reach the close-up and macro ranges. In this case, when the magnification approaches or exceeds 1:2-1:1, the lens probably will perform better if reversed. |
| Home | Photography | Macro lenses