02-25-2011, 01:29 PM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298613113' post='6344']
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
[/quote]
Of course a macro lens CAN beat a good normal lens. But then the macro lens has to be BETTER itself. The 60mm f2.8 from Nikon simply is not better.
I do not know why you say that by design a macro lens should have better resolution. That just makes little sense, just that a macro lens is a macro lens does not give it magical properties. Also contrast... The macro lens you are talking about has more elements, and no very special very expensive ones at that. It will have more glass/air surfaces than the more simple 50mm f1.8. So, if we disregard possible differences in coating success, the 50mm lens should be more contrasty by design.
Yes, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very good. I would prefer it over the 50mm f1.4 IQ wise. Also, it focusses faster than the 50mm f1.4. The 50mm f1.4 focusses more silent and probably a little bit more accurate/reliable.
The off-center resolution is not better, as far as I can see, only at f2.8? And when you are shooting at f2.8, you really do not care about border resolution. Ever.
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
[/quote]
Of course a macro lens CAN beat a good normal lens. But then the macro lens has to be BETTER itself. The 60mm f2.8 from Nikon simply is not better.
I do not know why you say that by design a macro lens should have better resolution. That just makes little sense, just that a macro lens is a macro lens does not give it magical properties. Also contrast... The macro lens you are talking about has more elements, and no very special very expensive ones at that. It will have more glass/air surfaces than the more simple 50mm f1.8. So, if we disregard possible differences in coating success, the 50mm lens should be more contrasty by design.
Yes, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very good. I would prefer it over the 50mm f1.4 IQ wise. Also, it focusses faster than the 50mm f1.4. The 50mm f1.4 focusses more silent and probably a little bit more accurate/reliable.
The off-center resolution is not better, as far as I can see, only at f2.8? And when you are shooting at f2.8, you really do not care about border resolution. Ever.