Macro Lens Comparison

MACRO CHAMP: The Most Bang for the Buck

IMAGE LINK: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …80mm_f_2_8_APO_​Macro.html

This is a very comprehensive analysis you've put together. Your analysis and subsequent rating appears to chiefly stress length of the focus ring throw, what you call focus precision, and then focal length. I conclude that the list of 13 lens parameters are not ordered from most to least important?

Poe wrote in post #17849010
This is a very comprehensive analysis you've put together.

Thank you. Took 10 days to complete

Poe wrote in post #17849010
Your analysis and subsequent rating appears to chiefly stress length of the focus ring throw, what you call focus precision, and then focal length.

No sir.

My rating system was based on a combination versatility combined with optical excellence.

The ability to do more and do a better job in a wide variety of possible macro/nature applications.

Poe wrote in post #17849010
I conclude that the list of 13 lens parameters are not ordered from most to least important?

They are listed in the factors that are most-important-to-least-important ... to me

As stated in the beginning, and at the end, your mileage may vary.

The central table is comprised of factual realities and performance ratings.

How I interpret those factual realities as to their importance may differ dramatically from how you do (which is kind of explained all throughout).

For example, if your primary passion is ultra-close arthropod portraits, you may not care about overall versatility, and so select the MPE 65 because of its versatility within the 1:1 - 5:1 parameter. The MPE is essentially useless for anything but ultra-close macro shots. However, if that is your primary shooting range, then you would stand my rating system on its head.

If you never use a tripod, and what matters most to you is to have a light, versatile macro lens to hand-hold, you may rate all of the facts in a totally different way (as encouraged to do in the article).

However, if you're looking for the macro lens that is across-the-board superior optically, built ruggedly, and that allows you to have more options than any other current offering, it would be hard to argue against the way I have arranged the stats and rating system.

Cheers,

Jack

Good article, and I would like to read it more carefully, but for now, I would suggest to replace minimum focus distance with minimum working distance as a criterion. The latter is the distance of the front of the lens to the subject. It is way more important than the distance from the back of the camera to the subject.

A long MWD helps in not scaring live subjects, but a short MWD greatly helps lighting quality (if using diffused on-camera flash). So the optimal MWD depends on the kind of shooting you are doing.

Ah. Thanks for the additional clarification.

Archibald wrote in post #17849147
Good article, and I would like to read it more carefully, but for now, I would suggest to replace minimum focus distance with minimum working distance as a criterion.

Thanks and I realize it is painfully-long (it was 14 pages and 6700 words in MS Word ), but if you grab a cold one and take a moment to read it critically, you will get more out of it.

Sure, and good distinction.

Archibald wrote in post #17849147
The latter is the distance of the front of the lens to the subject. It is way more important than the distance from the back of the camera to the subject.

Agreed, thank you.

Archibald wrote in post #17849147
A long MWD helps in not scaring live subjects, but a short MWD greatly helps lighting quality (if using diffused on-camera flash). So the optimal MWD depends on the kind of shooting you are doing.

Agreed again. You'll realize I cover all this, if you do more than skim the article.

I rate each lens based on my preferred way of shooting, but I encourage the reader to really read the strengths/weaknesses of each lens, and apply them to their preferred way of shooting, and so re-order the hierarchical importance as they see fit. (Described previously to Poe.)

If weight is a huge factor, then "my" primary choice (with weight as of no concern) might be another person's total refusal.

"What's best for me might not be best for you," etc.

Seeing how each lens stacks up factually, in the center table, is interesting in-and-of itself ... and can be reinterpreted as to each reader's importance, as the reader applies them to his/her primary interests and focus.

The fact that the Canon 100L has the worst MFing capability might not matter to a person who never uses a tripod and whose primary method of shooting is to nail moving bees in flight. Etc.

I know a guy who had the Sigma 180mm macro and loved it. He got great images with it. I would consider it for my stable of lenses, especially for hand-held available light macro work outdoors. (I already have the 65mm and 100mmL.)

A note on your writeup of the MP-E 65mm - you give a focus distance of 23.88 cm at 1x and then a working distance of 4.1 cm at 5x. It would be better to be consistent, and I would suggest using working distance in both cases. (It's 10.1 cm at 1x.)

I have to take you to task on one of your comments about the Sigma 105 ex dg os hsm macro lens in your blog.
You state that the lens extends when focussing ?
It does not extend at all as it is an internal focussing lens.
I do agree though that it is very heavy lens.

Dave Webster.

Archibald wrote in post #17849254
A note on your writeup of the MP-E 65mm - you give a focus distance of 23.88 cm at 1x and then a working distance of 4.1 cm at 5x. It would be better to be consistent, and I would suggest using working distance in both cases. (It's 10.1 cm at 1x.)

I wasted my breath, the inconsistency is still there.

Archibald wrote in post #17892228
I wasted my breath, the inconsistency is still there.

It's not a valid comparison of macro lenses or even a review. The whole piece can be summed up as "I love my lens and all the others are flawed". Happens when someone writes an opinion piece based solely on their style of shooting...

It's simply not true that the macro twinlight flash is needed to shoot the MPE65 effectively.
There have been plenty of POTN members that have proven that.

Agree that working distance should be used instead of MFD for all discussions of macro lenses.

Dalantech wrote in post #17892610
It's not a valid comparison of macro lenses or even a review.

It is a valid comparison.

You just have taken "The Art of Reading Badly" to a new level.

Dalantech wrote in post #17892610
The whole piece can be summed up as "I love my lens and all the others are flawed".

No, your statements can be summed up as either, "I didn't actually read the review," or possibly, "I lack comprehension."

Dalantech wrote in post #17892610
Happens when someone writes an opinion piece based solely on their style of shooting...

Yes, exactly. Based on my style of shooting. Very astute of you to notice (seeing as I said this all throughout the piece).

I also made notations under each specific lens, saying how they might be rated higher, "if the shooter's style is X or Y."

So there absolutely were allowances and statements made under each lens, based on other styles of shooting.

You missing this, over and over again, is what happens when people either don't actually take the time to read the whole piece ... or don't cipher information very well.

Archibald wrote in post #17892228
I wasted my breath, the inconsistency is still there.

You wasted your breath? That's a laugh. You hardly can write more than one line.

I am the one who wasted enough time writing a several-thousand-word piece for those who can only skim words and then write 1- or 2-line nitpicks.

John Koerner wrote in post #17898518
I am the one who wasted enough time ...

Yes, I believe you are correct.

Choderboy wrote in post #17894334
It's simply not true that the macro twinlight flash is needed to shoot the MPE65 effectively.
There have been plenty of POTN members that have proven that.

It's amazing how many people skim what they read.

I didn't say the MacroTwinlight the 'only' choice.

What I said was, you either need a flash or a macro rail to shoot the MP-E-65 ... and that whichever you choose (or both) becomes an added expense.

I do agree I should have said "flash" rather than specify the TwinLite.
However the takeaway isn't to quibble over minutia, but to recognize the need for additional lighting (or absolute stability) with the MP-E.

No way are you shooting greater than 1:1 wildlife photos without a flash or without a macro rail.

You will not be able to show me a single (sharp) non-staged wildlife photograph taken with the MP-E 65 at greater than 1:1, without the assistance of either some kind of flash or a macro rail.