Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
Thread started 13 Mar 2016 (Sunday) 21:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Macro Lens vs. Telephoto Lens with Extension Tubes

 
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,287 posts
Gallery: 418 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 19917
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 21, 2016 13:40 |  #16

DreDaze wrote in post #17979807 (external link)
but what do the numbers mean in the real world...like at what point does a difference become noticeable...i doubt someone would notice a 1 pt difference...so is it 5, 10, 15, 20...numbers are all well and good for scientific purposes, but i feel like they can lose a lot when translated to actual photographs

Indeed. Macro lenses are rarely tested at typical macro conditions - like in-close and at f/11.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 21, 2016 13:42 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #17979807 (external link)
but what do the numbers mean in the real world...like at what point does a difference become noticeable...i doubt someone would notice a 1 pt difference...so is it 5, 10, 15, 20...numbers are all well and good for scientific purposes, but i feel like they can lose a lot when translated to actual photographs

I am on a break right now, and don't have a bunch of time. However, I will try to explain to the best of my understanding.

A score of 1000 = optimal by today's standards (think Grade A in school).

Therefore, lenses/cameras with a Score of 1000 = outstanding in their capacity.

Lenses/cameras scoring over 1000 = SUPER lenses/cameras, just exemplary (think A++ in school ) :lol:

Moving down, lenses/cameras scoring in the 800-900 range are "above average," and certainly capable of pleasing images before "knowledgeable eyes." (Think B/B+ to A- in grading.)

However, lenses/cameras that start dipping in the 700 range are simply >meh< before knowledgeable eyes.
(Rookies may not see the faults, but anyone with experience will simply avert their eyes and not really care :rolleyes: )

As far as disparity goes, a difference of 40 - 80 is not really noticeable, so if your lens is an 840, while another is a 920, it isn't going to matter in the real world.

However, if you're shooting a 750/550 resolution/bokeh zoom, and comparing that to a 1000/1050-rated prime, the difference will be obvious, literally night and day.

A good guideline would be this:

Disparities of 50-100 are negligible.

Disparities from 100-200 are definitely noticeable, but possibly acceptable.

Disparities of 200+ are light years of qualitative difference, and UNacceptable to anyone who's experienced the difference.

Hope this helps, and (yes) ignorance of the difference can be bliss ... because once you know the difference, it gets expensive :-P

Jack




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Swiftlet
Member
80 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Feb 2016
     
Apr 21, 2016 18:49 |  #18

Dre - I share your concern. One route is to join some local photgraphers' club. Mine has a few guys with both versions of for example the Canon 100 - 400 I and II. In that case, on a projection screen you don't see much between them, but on a computer or even a lcd screen with expanded view, it sure shows. Warning is, it's likely to hurt your wallet.
A big advantage is being to compare exactly what you care about. For example, how the 100-400II is at its (quite close) close focus. ( It looked a just less good than at infinity, but still good enough on 18MP).
It also means you can put meanings against some of the numbers on "Jack's" tables.



Jack Swift

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davholla
Goldmember
1,265 posts
Gallery: 198 photos
Likes: 1083
Joined Nov 2014
     
Apr 22, 2016 04:05 |  #19

John Koerner wrote in post #17979624 (external link)
I have found these two sites, LenScore (external link) and SenScore (external link), to be valuable tools for making purchase decisions on lenses/camera bodies.

LenScore rates each the various lenses in Resolving Power, Contrast, Color, Bokeh, Distortion, Falloff, Flair, LaCA, LoCA. They also have separate categories for Primes versus Zooms. In almost every case, even mediocre Primes invariably blow away Zooms Lenses in every category.

SenScore also rates the various cameras, for Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, Resolving Power in each of the more popular DSLR cameras. They also distinguish between Full Frame and APS-C cameras. Full Frame cameras invariably blow away APS-C cameras in every category.

With that said, if you look at the original Canon 100-400mm zoom, it is one of the lowest-ranking zoom lenses made (5th from the bottom), with only 767 Resolving Power, 781 in Color, and 531 in Bokeh. If you slap extension tubes between this already-low-level lens and your camera, these numbers will be reduced even further.

By contrast, the Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS Macro (while having a low-level rating among primes, is still far sharper than most zooms and) rates 813 in Resolving Power, 870 in Color, and 925 in Bokeh, and you don't have to slap extension tubes inbetween, so I think the choice should be pretty clear.

Now, if you are talking about the newer Canon 100-400 II zoom, you might make a different choice, seeing is this 4th from the top among zooms, with 992 Resolving Power, 947 Color, and 816 Bokeh. If you owned this particular zoom, it might not be worth buying the Canon macro.

I would bookmark these sites, as they make periodic updates, and you can see where you stand, quality-wise, with the equipment you're purchasing.

Jack

Interesting website it says that the Canon 6D is a better camera than the Canon 5DMK II if I am reading it right.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,383 posts
Gallery: 94 photos
Likes: 781
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Apr 22, 2016 05:57 |  #20

When I was younger and had 3 young kids I could not afford a true macro lens so I purchased and used extension tubes and they worked well. Nowadays, with the kids grown up and moved away I purchase a Macro lens and WOW, what a huge difference.

Interestingly though, I still occasionally use an extension tube with my 200mm to reduce the minimal focal length further, and get good shots. Nice to have options in the bag.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Swiftlet
Member
80 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Feb 2016
     
Apr 22, 2016 06:54 |  #21

davholla wrote in post #17980552 (external link)
... it says that the Canon 6D is a better camera than the Canon 5DMK II if I am reading it right.

I assume you meant 5D MK III ? ;)

Dymanic range(s) appear to pull the average up. It's a more recent sensor, so perhaps it's not surprising. The 6D has some toys missing, I'm told. There's room in the range for a 5D MkIV or 6D MkII?

One score that sticks out is the APS Nikon D7100/D7200, (whose sensors are I think identical so the differences are curious). Released way back in Feb 2013. Where will the Canon 80D fall? And the Nikon D500?



Jack Swift

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davholla
Goldmember
1,265 posts
Gallery: 198 photos
Likes: 1083
Joined Nov 2014
     
Apr 22, 2016 06:56 |  #22

Swiftlet wrote in post #17980621 (external link)
I assume you meant 5D MK III ? ;)

Dymanic range(s) appear to pull the average up. It's a more recent sensor, so perhaps it's not surprising. The 6D has some toys missing, I'm told. There's room in the range for a 5D MkIV or 6D MkII?

One score that sticks out is the APS Nikon D7100/D7200, (whose sensors are I think identical so the differences are curious). Released way back in Feb 2013. Where will the Canon 80D fall? And the Nikon D500?

Yes you are right I meant 5D MK III - I know the 5D MKIII has extra features than the 6D but even so you would expect a better score for twice the price.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
     
Apr 22, 2016 09:33 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

davholla wrote in post #17980552 (external link)
Interesting website it says that the Canon 6D is a better camera than the Canon 5DMK II if I am reading it right.

It says that the 6D has a better sensor, on some areas.

As for "better overall camera," that is debatable.

The 6D doesn't have full viewfinder coverage and a lot of the other bells & whistles of the 5DIII ... but, I agree, it is definitely an overall better buy.

At the end of the day, your efforts get recorded on a sensor, so it only makes sense to buy a camera with the best sensor-quality you can afford.

A lot of people consider the 6D to be the best value in Canon cameras.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,419 views & 1 like for this thread
Macro Lens vs. Telephoto Lens with Extension Tubes
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cosmo19
914 guests, 228 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.