Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,795   Online: 897
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: 28mm macro???

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minden Hills, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    214
    I have a Tokina 28-105mm f4-5.3 macro, but it only twists to macro at 105mm mark on the zoom.

    Best regards,

    /Clay

  2. #12
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,087
    I purchased a Sigma 24mm F:2.8 SuperWide II Macro in a Nikon mount some years ago, however, never used it much. I should take it out and try it again, maybe the absence will make the eye grow finer?
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    I purchased a Sigma 24mm F:2.8 SuperWide II Macro in a Nikon mount some years ago, however, never used it much. I should take it out and try it again, maybe the absence will make the eye grow finer?
    Perhaps. But it won't increase the working distance.

    The worst thing about short macro lenses for 35 mm SLRs (and now the digital equivalent) is lack of working distance.

  4. #14
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    Re. my recent post, I have an Olympus Zuiko 50mm.'Macro' which is only close focus to 1:2. Nice lens and very useful but does not compare to my true 80mm. Zuiko Macro or my 135mm. and as Dan says :-
    The worst thing about short macro lenses for 35 mm SLRs (and now the digital equivalent) is lack of working distance.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  5. #15
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edcculus View Post
    What specific use would someone get from a 28mm macro? I expect you would have to be really close to the subject.
    Letting aside the issue of defining macro, as hinted at above, the shorter the focal length, yet gaining the same scale as a with longer focal lenght, the greater the ability to do handheld photography.
    With the trade-off of shorter object distance.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Letting aside the issue of defining macro, as hinted at above, the shorter the focal length, yet gaining the same scale as a with longer focal lenght, the greater the ability to do handheld photography.
    With the trade-off of shorter object distance.
    Why do you believe that? Are you writing from theory or from experience? If experience, please tell us more.

    I ask because in my experience (55/3.5 and 55/2.8 MicroNikkors, 105/4 and 105/2.8 MicroNikkors, 135/2.8 MakroTeleQuinon, and 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS) ror handheld closeup work with flash around 105 mm is the best compromise, taking into account ease of handling, working distance, live subjects' minimum approach distance, and so on.

    I've watched one person try to use my portable photographic aquarium with a 24 mm "macro" lens on a 35 mm SLR. Having had the joy of watching it done, I'd never ever use such a rig for closeup work.

    Ive tried to shoot a 25/3.5 Luminar on a Minolta Compact Bellows on a Nikon. Short version, handheld much above 1:1 is a waste of effort.

  7. #17
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,486
    I was refering to image distortion due to camera shake. It's a simple matter of geometry. And I spoke about "greater ability". Every movement of the camera will sooner or later influence the image. Furthermore it is a matter of kind of camera movement direction-wise.
    Last edited by AgX; 03-10-2013 at 08:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    I was refering to image distortion due to camera shake. It's a simple matter of geometry. And I spoke about "greater ability". Every movement of the camera will sooner or later influence the image. Furthermore it is a matter of kind of camera movement direction-wise.
    Thanks for the reply. You seem to speak from theory, not from measurement. Bad theory, at that.

    Shake doesn't cause distortion, it causes blur.

    The effects of movement (subject and camera movement are equivalent) depend on magnification, not on focal length. I don't know how old you are or how bad your tremor is. Mine is under good control, but I wouldn't shoot closeup handheld when using available darkness for illumination. When working closeup, shoot from tripod or or use flash or get motion blur. That's the law.

  9. #19
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,486
    Sorry for mixing up distortion and blur.

    But you seem not to see the geometrical issue and the implication of the focal lenght.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,355
    Thanks for the reply. Your insistence convinced me to build the little geometrical model and check its implications.

    Two kinds of motion are possible. Translation and rotation, and the center of rotation's location isn't clear.

    With translation, the analysis is simple: at magnification = m, translating the camera/lens assembly distance d moves the image at the film plane by d. Translating the subject distance d moves the image at the film plate by md. Either way, focal length doesn't enter.

    With rotation (assume for simplicity that the center of rotation is the lens' rear node), rotating the camera/lens assembly by a small angle theta moves the image at the film plane by (rear node to film plane distance)*tan(theta/2). Rear node to film plane distance given focal length f and magnification m is f*(1 + m) so rotating the camera/lens assembly by theta moves the image at the film plane by f*(1 + m)*tan(theta/2). In this case focal length does matter.

    Whether focal length matters in practice depends on how camera shake is divided between translation and rotation. In my experience, shake is all translation, no rotation.

    Note, however, that I shoot closeup handheld with a Nikon and flash illumination. This approach eliminates motion blur and, until KM went away, allowed full control over aperture. Measurement trumps theory.

    What is your experience? If you shoot closeup at all, how do you light your shots?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin