I nave no exprience with a micro(or macro) lens but I have read that a micro lens usually has super resolution and very good optical quality. I am curious that if a micro lens is used as a normal lens, will it do much better than a normal lens at the same focal lens (of course not being used for portrait shot)?
As a concrete example, I am considering Nikkor AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro. I have seen some photos of walls and rocks etc shooted with this lens, they look remarkable. I wonder if this lens is used as a standard lens on a full frame Nikon, will it do better than the 50mm f1.8 (not considering the maximum aperture)? For shooting objects at a normal near distance (i.e. not too close so that the micro function is irrelevant) I am almost sure 60 2.8 will do better (but not sure if much better), but how about objects at a far distance (e.g. landscape shooting)?
Any commnets and opinions are greatly welcome!
Frank
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298517901' post='6307']
As a concrete example, I am considering Nikkor AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro. I have seen some photos of walls and rocks etc shooted with this lens, they look remarkable. I wonder if this lens is used as a standard lens on a full frame Nikon, will it do better than the 50mm f1.8 (not considering the maximum aperture)? For shooting objects at a normal near distance (i.e. not too close so that the micro function is irrelevant) I am almost sure 60 2.8 will do better (but not sure if much better), but how about objects at a far distance (e.g. landscape shooting)?
[/quote]
One of the important things about a good macro lens is additional optics to correct for close range aberrations (in addition to the obvious extra extension allowed by the focusing mechanism). An ordinary 60mm f/2.8 lens should have a fairly simple construction but looking at the 12 element design of the AF-S 60 macro, it's clear that it has those extra optics. This should have some impact when shooting things near-infinity but without really testing, I can't tell.
But here's a comparison of the AF-S 60 2.8 and the 50 1.8 on the D3x:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...&APIComp=6
If the macro lens is not any more special at f/11 at chart distances, as shown, I can't see why the non-macro lens would get worse at further distances (for small apertures).
If you're talking about bokeh, focusing, etc. then I have a strong feeling the 60 is significantly better.
GTW
I use Pentax DA 35 Macro as normal lens, and have a feeling that at near it is sharper than at infinity (but still very good). Haven't seen any objective test to confirm that. Bokeh is different and better at near. Focus throw is longer and if AF starts to hunt, it takes a while(but if there is focus limiter this might not be an issue). Manual adjusting is bit difficult, as longest throw is for near. Obviously, it looses primes advantage of speed. On the other hand it is quite handy to have macro for such lens, and overall I use it most of the time (for daylight
).
It is not about the lens you are asking, but I guess macros should behave similarly.
A.
Some macro lenses are used for portrait shots because of their suitable focal length (e.g. 60mm on APS-C or ~100mm on FF) or overall sharpness. They're fast but not as fast as a f/1.4 or 1.8 portrait lens. Bacground or foreground isolation is easier with decent portrait lenses. Besides, I personally find the high contrast and acquity of macro lenses not so suitable for portait photography.
OTOH, when it comes to landscape photograpy where this FL can be used for specific cases, I think they would be serving very well (maybe with some reservations for focus hunting, depending on the model). Same goes for the texture detail shots...
Serkan
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
I don't think so. The 60mm micro (AF-S) is not really special, it does not have super bokeh for instance. It is not sharper either, see the results from the photozone reviews... in fact, the 50mm f1.8 is sharper.What I can not judge is whether the micro is more contrasty. It might not, due to the higher optical element count.
What you read is a blanket statement, which does not always apply (and probably only applies sometimes). Some macro lenses are special, like the 1:2 100mm f2 Zeiss macro. Others are just ok lenses, that happen to be able to focus closer than "normal" lenses.
In short:
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) is NOT sharper than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus closer by than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will not open as wide as the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus slower than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
I would not consider the 60mm f2.8 micro just as a replacement for a 50mm f1.8. Only when you want a 60mm macro, and you do not also want the 50mm f1.8, it makes sense as "normal" prime. The 50mm f1.8 is the superior lens as normal prime.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 happens to be quite a good little lens, for a very affordable price. If you happen to be able to afford a full frame DSLR, I think not getting this lens is false economy.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
From my own experience 50mm 1.8 is bloody sharp at apertures below 2.8, I doubt the 60mm micro would be sharper.
The only issue I had with this lens (not revelant in this case) - the minimum focusing distance of around 0.5m, which might be annoying in some situations. Can be 'sort of' fixed with $5 reversal ring, lol <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1298551897' post='6317']
From my own experience 50mm 1.8 is bloody sharp at apertures below 2.8, I doubt the 60mm micro would be sharper.
The only issue I had with this lens (not revelant in this case) - the minimum focusing distance of around 0.5m, which might be annoying in some situations. Can be 'sort of' fixed with $5 reversal ring, lol <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Can be "better" fixed with an extension tube, like a 12mm and/or 25mm one. The lens remains normally usable, just the focus distance range "collapses", giving you close up or macro abilities depending on the size of the extension.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens;
[/quote]
By "rich texture" you're talking about micro contrast then it has very little to do with a lens being macro or not. Only two things matter (equally): (1) high resolution and (2) lack of CA.
Almost all primes give more than good resolution when stopped down. But very few of them are "free" of CA.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
Umm if you're coming to that conclusion by the link I gave you then I'm not too sure. What I said was, if the ordinary 50 1.8 @ f/11 is good at chart distances which are very close, it should perform even better at far distances. The AF-S 60 2.8 on the other hand, is optimised for close distances... so if it's not any better than the 50 1.8 at that relatively close distance for which it is optimised, I'm finding it difficult to see how it can be better or equal to the possibly infinity-optimised 50 1.8 at far distances.
GTW
Thank you all again.
It appears to me that some of you (or all of you) are saying that when being used as a normal lens, a macro lens cannot beat a good normal lens like 50 1.8. I tend to believe your statements since I have never used a macro lens. However, I am still curious: by design a macro lens should have superior resolution, and should have better resolution and contrast off the lens center than a normal lens. However, you are saying that as a normal lens the 60 2.8 macro cannot produce an image better than 50 1.8 at the same aperture in terms of resolution and contrast. Is this because the 50 1.8 is too good?
From the MTFs provided by Nikon, the AF-S 60 2.8 macro has a very impressive MTF at f/2.8. Nikon did not provide a MTF for the 50 1.8D at f/2.8. But from the test on this website (on APS-C cameras) I saw that at the lens center the resolution of the 50 1.8D beats that of the AF-S 60 2.8 macro; but the off cetter resolution of 60 2.8 is better.
Frank