Hi Rob, Thanks for posting those images, very nice. They illustrate the effects of different focal lenghs vey nicely. The A/50 2.8 being my favourite. Fantastic.
Antonio On 11/8/04 2:12 am, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Aug 2004 at 16:35, Anders Hultman wrote: > >> If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens >> and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be >> different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? > > Practically there will be little difference (and virtually nil if you are are > looking to replace your 50mm bellows with a regular 50mm macro aside from the > operation differences). > > The long and short of it (pun intended of course) is that when using a short > FL > macro you will be relatively closer to the subject, this means that lighting > may be made more difficult, your subject may be disturbed by the proximity of > the lens and you may not be able to isolate the subject as effectively due to > the relatively wider AOV. On the positive side shake is diminished somewhat > and > the maximum apertures are fastest with short lenses so they are generally > easier to use and more forgiving when shooting hand held especially when using > available light. > > Longer lenses provide greater working distance and a tend to isolate the > subject more effectively however they are far more difficult to hand hold > effectively. I guess this is why macro lenses around 100mm are so popular as > they offer a reasonable compromise between all the factors mentioned above. > > In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes > I > set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. > All shots were made at f5.6 at a mag factor of 2x and the tripod was slid out > from the subject until focus was achieved The framing isn't perfect between > each frame but it's good enough to highlight the differences. You will see > more > background details in the 50mm shot and you will see the perspective > distortion > flattening out in the 200mm shot. > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5685.jpg A50/2.8 Macro > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5686.jpg V125/2.5 Macro > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5688.jpg A*200/4 Macro > (w/mirror > pre-fire) > > The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser > with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images > synchronously. Looking at these images again I wish I also had a 28mm (or > wider) macro lens for use in instances where working distance isn't critical. > > I'll leave these images on line for a couple of days. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
